In the Irish Courts
| Published date | 01 July 1946 |
| Date | 01 July 1946 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834601000306 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts
SUPREME
COURT
OF
EIRE
THE
WORDING
OF
A
SUMMONS
A.-G. v. Hourigan
IN
A.-G.
v. Hourigan (79 Jr.
L.T.R.
130),
the
defendant
was charged in
the
District
Court
"that
he
did
unlaw-
fully
have
in
his possession, use or
carry
a firearm"
without
being authorised
by
afirearms certificate.
Upon
his
pleading
that
the
summons was
bad
for triplication, in
that
he was charged
alternatively
or disjunctively,
the
ensuing
proceedings were
remarkable
for
the
fact
that
three
separate
courts
came
to
three
quite
distinct
conclusions.
The
learned
District
Justice
held
that
the
summons
was
bad
and
that
he could
not
amend
a
summons
which was
bad
on
its
face.
Gavan
Duffy
J.,
in
the
High
Court, concluded
that
the
summons
was bad,
but
that
the
District
Justice
could amend, while
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
under
Rule
59 of
the
District
Court Rules
"it
is clear
that
no
objection
that
the
summons
is
bad
can
be
sustained
before
the
District
Justice".
The
English rule is
that,
under
section 1 of
the
Summary
Jurisdiction
Act, 1848, no
objection shall be
taken
or allowed to
any
summons
for
any
alleged defect
in
substance or in
form;
the
Irish
rule
was
that,
under
section 39 of
the
Petty
Sessions (Ireland)
Act, 1851, no objection could be
taken
in
cases
under
that
Act;
but,
now,
under
Rule
59 (supra),
"No
objection shall
be
taken
or allowed in
any
proceedings etc.
under
these
Rules, for
any
alleged
defecCtherein,
in substance or in
form, or for
any
variance
between
any
information etc.
and
the
evidence (unless)
the
defendant
has
been
thereby
deceived or misled".This
remarkable
latitude
allowed to prosecutors was once
stated
by
Palles
C.B. to be a concession to
the
slender legal
attainments
of
the
Justices'
Clerks
and
it
is
perhaps
to be
deprecated
that
the
Rules
introduced
into
the
new
Irish
jurisdiction of
this
214
To continue reading
Request your trial