In the Irish Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837403800408 |
| Published date | 01 October 1974 |
| Date | 01 October 1974 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the
Irish
Courts
SUPREME
COURT
IN
EIRE
CORRECTING
A
JUSTICE'S
ERROR
The State (Hayden) v. Good
THE appeallant in this case (1972, I.R. 351) was charged with
certain criminal offences on charge sheets 576
and
577,
but
the District Justice, having heard the prosecution's evidence,
dis--
charged the appellant
and
marked those sheets accordingly.
Unfortunately, he also marked 'Discharge' on a further charge
sheet
(212),
on which the appellant was charged with breaking
and
entering, larceny
and
receiving stolen property. He did so by
inadvertance, for no evidence
had
been given on those charges
and
that
sheet
had
not been referred to in the proceedings. At the
later
sitting, evidence was given on thoes charges, but, at a still
later
sitting, the prosecution stated
that
it did
not
propose to
give any
further
evidence
and
the justice marked the charge sheet
'Withdrawn',
as requested.
The
appellant was later charged with
the same offences, on a new sheet 212A,
and
was eventually
remanded on bail. He applied to the High
Court
for
an
order
of certiorari to quash the remand order, on the ground
that
he
was being charged twice on the same evidence.
The
Attorney
General then applied to have the justice's first (inadvertant) order
quashed on certiorari. Henchy J. quashed
that
original order, as
it was made without any consideration of the evidence
and
therefore
was without jurisdiction and, secondly, on the further ground
that
it was made without notice to the prosecution
and
therefore in
disregard of the essentials of justice.
In
the opinion of the High
Court,
the Attorney-General's application should have been made
immediately the justice's error was discovered. As, however, sheet
212
had
been allowed to stand, together with the erroneously
statement 'Discharge', Henchy J. was of opinion
that
all the
subsequent proceedings arising
out
of it were invalid.
Nor
were
the proceedings arising
out
of sheet 212A
any
more valid, since
the justice
had
no jurisdiction to
mark
the original sheet 'With-
drawn'. Henchy J. was of opinion, however,
that
if he quashed
the original erroneous order, all the other proceedings would then
311
To continue reading
Request your trial