Case stated

DPP v. Furlong – HC – Drink driving, District Court summonses, abuse of process

By Mark Tottenham BL in Sheehan J No Comments Tags: , , ,

DPP v. Furlong [2011] IEHC 284 (9 June 2011)

High Court (Sheehan J) finds that issue of a summons in drink driving case was abuse of process, where seven related summonses were issued in a different District Court area, and holds that the District Judge did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. (Full text.)

Consultative case stated from District Court – s. 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1994 (as amended) – charge with refusal to give a breath specimen – reissue of seven summonses for various road traffic offences including drink driving and refusal to give specimen arising from same arrest – seven summonses struck out – eighth summons to different District Court area – delay of 18 months between incident and service of summonses – whether abuse of process – whether any reason for failure to bring all charges together in one location

The State (at the Prosecution of Robert Trimbole) v. The Governor of Mountjoy Prison [ 1985] 1 I.R. 550
Director of Public Prosecutions v. O Donnell [1995] 2 I.R. 294
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Cronin (Ex tempore, High Court, Geoghegan J., 25th July, 1994)
Cormack v. Director of Public Prosecutions & Farrell v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] I.E.S.C. 63
R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 A.C. 42
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Nevin [2003] 3 I.R. 321
R. v. Fernandez [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 123
O’Leary v. Cunningham [1980] 1 I.R. 367
Cormack v. Director of Public Prosecutions & Farrell v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] I.E.S.C. 63

DPP v Hegarty – SC – Competition law, criminal offence, case stated

By Mark Tottenham BL in McKechnie J No Comments Tags: , ,

DPP v Hegarty [2011] IESC 32 (28 July 2011)

Supreme Court (McKechnie J, nem diss) finds, by way of consultative case stated from the Circuit Court, that a director or manager of an undertaking could be found guilty of a competition law offence without the undertaking in question being convicted of the offence. (Full text.)

Competition law – consultative case stated – offence by director or manager of prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade of gas oil – entry of nolle prosequi against relevant undertakings – whether necessary that undertaking be convicted before the relevant individual could be convicted – s 3(4)(a) Competition (Amendment) Act 1996 – whether a jury capable of finding that the undertaking has committed an offence in the absence of a charge relating to the undertaking -

R. v. Donald [1986] 83 Cr. App. R. 49
A v. Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] 4 I.R. 88
R. v. Dickson [1991] B.C.C. 719
R. v. Ontario Chrysler 1997 Ltd. 1994 CanLII 8758 (ON C.A.)
D.P.P. v. Roseberry Construction Ltd. [2003] 4 I.R. 338
R. v. Cogan [1976] Q.B. 217
A. v. Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] 4 I.R. 88
Cahill v. Sutton [1980] I.R. 269

Canty v. PRTB – SC, residential tenancies

By Mark Tottenham BL in Fennelly J, McKechnie J 1 Comment Tags: , ,

Canty v. PRTB [2011] IESC 28 (19 July 2011)

Supreme Court (Fennelly J, nem diss): i) dismisses appeal from refusal of High Court (McKechnie J) to grant judicial review of the issue of criminal summons by the Private Residential Tenancies Board; and ii) affirms the decision by the High Court that a landlord was entitled to enforce an interim order of the PRTB after a final determination had been made. (Full text.)

Judicial review and case stated – issue of summons for breach of direction of Private Residential Tenancies Board – failure of appellant to comply with determination order – dispute over electricity bills – failure of tenant to sign PRTB registration form – interim direction of PRTB – determination of Circuit Court – whether a private landlord was entitled to enforce an interim determination of the board after a final determination had been made – whether the board had the power to institute criminal proceedings prior to the exhaustion of the civil proceedings.

Dillon v Dunne’s Stores Ltd., [1966] IR 397

DPP v. Gillespie – Consultative case stated, drink driving

By Mark Tottenham BL in Hedigan J No Comments Tags: , ,

DPP v. Gillespie [2011] IEHC 236 (9 June 2011)

High Court (Hedigan J) holds that question posed in consultative case stated is one of fact rather than law, and remits issue to District Court to determine whether there was in fact a breach of custody regulations. (Full text.)

Criminal law – drink driving – District Court – consultative case stated – admissibility of evidence – whether judge entitled to exercise discretion to exclude evidence – prisoner on telephone when being given information in accordance with custody regulations – Criminal Justice Act 1984 (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda Síochána Stations) Regulations 1987 – procedure for consultative case stated – whether question was one of fact rather than law.

Walsh v. District Judge O’Buachalla [1991] 1 I.R. 56
DPP v Spratt [1995] 1 I.R. 585
DPP v. Diver [2005] 3 I.R. 271
DPP (Travers) v. Brennan[1998] 4 I.R. 67

DPP v England – Forfeiture order, proceeds of crime

By Mark Tottenham BL in Hardiman J No Comments Tags: ,

DPP v England [2011] IESC 16 (Hardiman J, nem diss, 16 May 2011)

Supreme Court holds, by way of answer to case stated, that trial judge incorrect in holding that, where a detention order had expired, money was “detained” for the purpose of a forfeiture order. (Full text.)

Case stated from High Court – section 38, Criminal Justice Act 1994 – detention of respondent at Dublin airport with £79,960 in cash – alleged proceeds of drugs trafficking – seizure of moneys by customs officer – application for forfeiture – expiration of order detaining moneys – whether necessary for forfeiture order than money be held pursuant to existing detention order.

KSK Entrerprises Limited. v. An Bord Pleanála [1994] 2 IR

Revenue Commissioners -v- Droog; Tax avoidance schemes, time limits.

By Mark Tottenham BL in Laffoy J No Comments Tags: ,

Revenue Commissioners -v- Droog [2011] IEHC 142 (Laffoy J, 31 March 2011)

High Court decides, by way of case stated, that the Appeal Commissioner was correct in determining that the four-year time limits provided in sections 955 and 956 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 applied to the forming of an opinion in relation to tax avoidance schemes under section 811 of the Act. (Full text.)

Taxation – decision of Appeal Commissioner – case stated – s 941, Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 – loss arising from partnership – whether a tax avoidance scheme – whether notice of opinion by Revenue Commissioners out of time by virtue of sections 955 and 956 of 1997 Act – invocation of anti-avoidance measures nine years after self-assessment – section 811, 1997 Act – whether term “at any time” in section 811 had effect of disapplying time bars in sections 955 and 956 of 1997 Act.

Cronin (Inspector of Taxes) v. Cork and County Property Company Ltd. [1986] I.R. 559
Keogh v. Criminal Assets Bureau [2004] 2 I.R. 159
Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 KB 64
Harris v. Quigley[2006] 1 I.R. 165
D.B. v. Minister for Health [2003] 3 I.R. 12

DPP [At Suit of Garda Grant] -v- Reddy, Drunk driving, case stated

By Mark Tottenham BL in Kearns P No Comments Tags: ,

DPP [At Suit of Garda Grant] -v- Reddy [2011] IEHC 40 (Kearns P, 4 February 2011)

High Court holds that District Court judge erred in law in dismissing case, where opinion of Garda that accused was drunk driving was not based on his own observation.

Case stated – criminal law – driving under the influence of an intoxicant – s. 49 (4) and (6) (a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (as amended) – incorrect name of section 17 certificate – reasonableness of opinion grounding arrest – fact that Garda did not see accused driving – acquittal by District Court judge – refusal to convict under s. 50 of 1961 Act – appeal by prosecution – whether opinion of Garda need be based on own observations.

Ruttledge v. District Judge Clyne and the Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] I.E.H.C. 146
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Cullen (Unreported, High Court, 2nd July 1984)
Director of Public Prosecutions v. O’Neill [2008] I.E.H.C. 457
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kenny [2006] I.E.H.C. 330
Director of Public Prosecutions (O’Mahony) v. O’Driscoll [2010] I.E.S.C. 42
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Breheny (Unreported, Supreme Court, 2nd March 1993)
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Gray (Unreported, High Court, 8th May 1987)
O’Hara v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997] A.C.
Proes v. Revenue Commissioners [1998] 4 I.R. 174
Director of Public Prosecutions v. McCrea [2010] I.E.S.C. 60
Hobbs v. Hurley (Unreported, High Court, 10th June 1980)
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Penny [2006] 3 I.R. 553

DPP v O’Neill, Drunk in charge, lawfulness of arrest

By Mark Tottenham BL in Denham J No Comments Tags: ,

DPP v O’Neill [2011] IESC 7 (Denham J, nem diss, 16 February 2011)

Supreme Court allows appeal from High Court, and holds that the respondent was lawfully arrested under section 50 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

Appeal from High Court (Edwards J) [2008] I.E.H.C. 457 – case stated from District Court – Section 50, Road Traffic Act 1961 – whether arrest lawful – whether respondent was “driving” – whether genuine but mistaken belief that respondent was drunk was irrational – rationality.

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Breheny (Unreported, Supreme Court, 2nd March, 1993)
Hobbs v. Hurley, (Unreported, High Court, Costello J., 10th June, 1980)
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Finnegan [2009] 1 I.R. 48
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Byrne [2002] 2 I.R. 397
The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Moloney, (Unreported, High Court, 20th December, 2001)

DPP v Leipina [2011] IESC 3 (Finnegan J, nem diss, 2 February 2011)

By Mark Tottenham BL in Finnegan J No Comments Tags: ,

Consultative case stated – Circuit Court appeal from District Court – no insurance for motor vehicle – International Motor Insurance Card (“Green Card”) – whether policy of insurance attested to by way of Green Card may be defence to prosecution for lack of insurance – S.I. No. 384/1992 Article 8 – onus of proving that vehicle covered by insurance.

Court holds that vehicle is not covered for insurance under Green Card system, and that accused had no defence to charge.

Jacobs v Motor Insurers Bureau [2010] EWHC 231

Kilsaran Concrete -v- Commissioner of Valuation [2010] IEHC 434 (Hedigan J, 7 December 2010)

By Mark Tottenham BL in Hedigan J No Comments Tags: ,

Valuation Act 2001 – case stated from Valuation Tribunal – whether asphalt manufacturing plant exempt from rateability – paragraph 1, schedule 5 of Valuation Act – whether “blanket exemption” – meaning of phrase “inducing a process of change”.

High Court finds that tribunal erred in law in its finding that concrete manufacturing plants were not exempt from rateability.

Caribmolasses Company Limited v Commissioner of Valuation [1994] 3 I.R. 189
Pfizer v Commissioner of Valuation (Unreported, High Court, 28th July, 1994)
Mara v Hummingbird Limited [1982] ILRM 421
Henry Denny and Sons (Ireland) v The Minister for Social Welfare [1998] 1 I.R. 34
Premier Periclase Limited v Commissioner of Valuation (Unreported, 24th June, 1999)
Nangles Nurseries Limited v Commissioner of Valuation [2008] IEHC 73

Subscribe

Get every new post on this site delivered to your Inbox.

Join other subscriberss: