In the Irish Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835802200409 |
| Published date | 01 October 1958 |
| Date | 01 October 1958 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts
HIGH
COURT
IN
EIRE
INDICTING
ACORPORATION
The State (Batchelor
&1
Co. (Ireland) Ltd.) v.
0'
Leannain
INIreland, as in England, it is clear
that
acorporation
aggregate may be indicted for statutory or common law
offences, and in particular the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887
expressly provides
that
acompany offending against the Act
may be indicted.
In
The State (Batchelor
&1
Co. (Ireland) Ltd.)
v.
O'Leannain (1957,
l.R.
I), however, Murnaghan J. had to
conclude, albeit with reluctance,
that
in Ireland the statutory
requirements as to
the
preliminaries to an indictment may
permit acorporation to escape
upon
atechnicality.
In
the
instant case, a complaint was made
that
the
defendant company
had offended against the provisions of the Merchandise Marks
Act, 1887.
The
company appeared before aDistrict Justice
and
after evidence had been taken on deposition an order was
made committing the Corporation for trial on indictment.
Objection was
then
taken on certiorari before the High Court
that
in Ireland preliminary hearings arise
out
of the Indictable
Offences (Ireland) Act, 1849 (a copy of the English Act
of 1848) and
that
these provisions are in fact inapplicable to
corporations.
It
was argued
that
acompany cannot appear at
the
preliminary hearing and
that
an order for sending a com-
pany for trial cannot be operated
under
the Act.
It
is clear
that
the Act was enacted to deal only with individuals and does
not contemplate corporations: for example, prosecution wit-
nesses can be examined only
"in
the presence of such accused
person";
evidence of deceased witnesses taken on deposition
is admissible only if originally given
"in
the presence or
hearing of the person so accused"; and,
under
s. 18, statements
may be taken,
under
caution, from
"the
prisoner". Indeed,
3
15
To continue reading
Request your trial