In the Irish Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835301700206 |
| Published date | 01 April 1953 |
| Date | 01 April 1953 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts
HIGH
COURT
IN
IRELAND
COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL
The State (A.G.) o. Judge Roe
W
HE
N
the
accused in The State (A.G.) v.JudgeRoe (1951,
I.R.
172) appeared before
the
Circuit Court on various
charges,
they
objected to trial on
the
ground
that
there was
nothing to show
that
they
had
been properly returned for
trial, as
the
entry
in
the
District Justice's book
had
been
merely rubber-stamped
and
no certified copies
had
been
put
in. The case was adjourned until
the
following day,
when
the
District Court clerk attended to give oral evidence
as
to
the
Justice's order
and
the
circumstances of
the
entry
in
the
Justice's book,
and
he submitted certified
copies of
the
committal orders which
had
been prepared
overnight
and
signed
by
the
District Justice who was
said
to
be present, ready
to
give evidence. The learned
Circuit Court Judge held, however,
that
it
was too late
to
rectify
the
earlier defects in procedure
and
held
that
he
had
no jurisdiction to
try
the
accused. His decision, when
challenged
in
the
High Court on writs of Mandamus
and
Certiorari, was reversed. Three points of interest arise
from this case.
(1)
The first question raised was whether
the
copies
handed in late should have been accepted. On
the
authority of R. o. Rowland
(1858,
1F. &F. 72),
it
was held
that
their original absence could be remedied on
anadjoum-
ment
and
that
their production
at
any
time is good evidence
of
the
accused's being returned for trial. This conclusion
follows Bramwell B's decision in
that
case
that
such pro-
cedure is necessary
"in
order
that
there might
not
be a
miscarriage of justice".
(2)
The second question was whether there was
sufficient proof of
the
committal order made
by
the
Justice.
The Court rejected
the
contention
that
oral evidence of
the
1611
To continue reading
Request your trial