High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court made the 20th December, 1995 granting the Applicant leave to apply by way of an Application for Judicial Review for an Order of Prohibition preventing the first named Respondent from taking any further steps in the criminal proceedings the subject matter of the Application and for an Order of Certiorari in respect of the Order of the second named Respondent made on the 7th November, 1995 returning the Applicant for trial at the Circuit Court at Dundalk.

2. The facts, in so far as they are relevant to the present Application can be summarised as follows:-

3. On the 9th August, 1994, following an investigation, application was made on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the District Court Clerk at Drogheda District Court for two summonses. The two summonses were directed to the Applicant and in these summonses it is alleged that the Applicant "on the 10th February, 1994 at 32 Chord Road, Drogheda a public place within the Court area and district aforesaid had unlawfully in your possession controlled drug to wit cannabis contrary to Section 3 and Section 27 (as amended by Section 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1984) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977". In the second summons at the same time and place it is alleged that the Accused "had in your possession controlled drug to wit cannabis for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying to persons unknown in contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, 1979 made under Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977 contrary to Section 15 and Section 27 (as amended by Section 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1984) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977".

4. By the summonses which are dated the 9th August, 1994 the Applicant is required to appear in the District Court on the 22nd September, 1994.

5. The Applicant appeared before the sitting of the Drogheda District Court represented by his Solicitor and subsequently the documents specified in Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 were served on him. These documents included a statement of the charges against him. These Statement of Charges are in the following form. They state that the Accused is charged:-

6. Of significance in the context of the submissions made by Counsel for the Applicant is the fact that the statement of charges does not indicate the date upon which the alleged offences were alleged to have been committed or the place at which they were alleged to have been committed.

7. Application for leave to seek Judicial Review was originally made to

8. Mr. Justice Geoghegan. However, the Application was not successful. On appeal to the Supreme Court leave was granted to the Applicant to apply to the Court by way of an Application for Judicial Review and the matter now comes before this Court on foot of the Order made by the Supreme Court.

9. Counsel for the Applicant advances his submissions on one basis and one basis only and specifically abandons a variety of other submissions contained in the statement of grounds.

10. The one basis upon which relief is sought is that it is submitted that the statement of charges fails to disclose the jurisdiction of the District Judge for the District of Drogheda, District No.62 entertain these proceedings as the statement of charges served on the Applicant pursuant to Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 does not state the date or the place at which the alleged offences are alleged to have been committed.

11. The proceedings herein were commenced by way of an Application to the District Court Clerk at Drogheda District Court office for the issue of summonses. These summonses were duly issued and served on the Applicant and clearly state that the alleged offences are alleged to have been committed on the 10th February, 1994 at 32 Chord Road, Drogheda. These summonses were the documents before the District Judge when the matter came before him pursuant to Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 for the purpose of conducting a preliminary examination of the charges. These summonses constitute and clearly show the jurisdiction of the Judge to entertain the matter.

12. The next procedural step was for the documents provided by Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 to be served on the Accused. These documents include a statement of the charges against him and are required to be in the form prescribed in the 2nd Schedule (Form 1) of the District Court (Criminal Procedure Act, 1967) Rules 1967. The summons and the statement of charges in this case complies with the format provided in the Rules. In my view, it clearly states the charges against the Applicant. It does not state when these charges were alleged to have been committed nor does it state where the alleged charges are alleged to have been committed. However, the District Court does not derive its jurisdiction to entertain the case from the statement of charges. That jurisdiction is founded upon the summons under which the Accused is brought before the Court. The summonses in this case clearly state the jurisdiction of the Court.

13. Accordingly, I am of the view that in so far as the failure to state the time and place at which the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed in the statement of charges may be incorrect. I am satisfied that its submission did not deprive the District Judge of jurisdiction.

14. Counsel for the Applicant having expressly abandoned any claim for relief based on an allegation that the failure to state the time and place of the commission of the alleged offence has given rise to prejudice or constitutes unfair procedures, I refuse the relief sought.