In the Irish Courts
| Published date | 01 November 1982 |
| Date | 01 November 1982 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201838204600405 |
| Subject Matter | Comments on Cases |
IN THE IRISH COURTS
SUPREME
COURT
IN
EIRE
RIGHT
TO
JURY
TRIAL
The
Irish Constitution provides that no person shall be tried on any
criminal charge save in due course
of
law
and
that no person shall
be tried on such a charge without ajury. But that latter provision
is,
of
course, subject to a number
of
exceptions, including the
power
of
courts
of
summary jurisdiction to try
"minor"
charges.
Section 3
(I)
of
the Prohibition
of
Forcible Entry
and
Occupation
Act 1971provides that aperson who remains in forcible occupation
of
land or a vehicle shall be guilty
of
an offence unless he is the
owner
of
the land or vehicle or so remains thereon in pursuance
of
a
bona
fide claim
of
right. The Act provides for penalties on
summary conviction
and
on conviction on indictment
and
specifically enacts that the summary jurisdiction
of
the District
Court
shall not be ousted by reason solely
of
a title to land being
brought in issue. In The State (McEvitt) v. Delap [1981] I.R. 125,
the defendants were charged with having remained in forcible
occupation
of
land at certain named premises,
"they
not being the
owners
of
the said land or having a
bona
fide claim
of
right to
it".
In the District
Court,
they stated that they wished to be tried by a
jury,
but
the prosecution objected, on the ground that the Director
of
Public Prosecutions had, in his discretion, decided that the
defendants should be proceeded against summarily. The case was
adjourned to allow the defendants to obtain, if they could, an order
of
the High
Court
prohibiting summary trial. In the High
Court,
the judge was apparently
of
the opinion
that
the Act
of
1971 was
not sufficiently clear
and
explicit in its terms to deprive the
defendants
of
the right to trial by
jury
and
he granted the order
of
prohibition.
On appeal to the Supreme
Court,
the defendants conceded that
the offence with which they were charged was a
"minor"
offence;
but they claimed their right to trial by
jury
could not be taken away
at the option
of
the Director
of
Public Prosecutions.
The
court
pointed
out,
however, that the effect
of
the Constitution, as
232
To continue reading
Request your trial