Statute of limitations

How does this factor into offenses where are person is to be summonsed to court?
Say for example if Joe bloggs had drugs confiscated from him.
Does the statute of limitations mean that he has to receive his summons within 6 months or that the court date must be set within 6months of the offense.
Does this count non working days?
What does it mean if the process takes longer than 6 months?

johnnyskeleton

The statute of limitations applys to civil actions.

The general rule is that there is no time limit for a criminal offence.

However, where there is a summary (e.g. minor) offence, under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 (or some other old school law), the summons for a summary offence must be issued (as opposed to served) within 6 months of the date of offence.

So if the offence is minor, the gardai must get a summons issued within 6 months. As long as it is served within a reasonable time period, i.e. there is no prosecutorial delay, then it's fine. So, what with the pressure on the courts' time, disclosure/service of evidence and delay in general, the court date can take place a good deal after 6 months from the offence.

So such a hypothetical person doesn't have to receive it within 6 months, nor does he need to have the court date set within 6 months.

However, possession of drugs is not always a minor offence, especially if it is a large amount for sale or supply. There is no time limit on an indictable offence.

In any case, there have been a few cases on this area, so these are just the most basic principles and it is often more subtle.

The 6 months is six calendar months.

If it is a summary only offence then if 6 months pass without a summons being issued the offender has a good defence. If the prosecution take an inordinate amount of time bringing it to trial, then it might be struck out for prosecutorial delay. This depends on the seriousness of the offence, the length of the delay, and the reason for the delay (i.e. was it due to prosecutorial laziness etc?).

Interesting stuff thanks for the info.

Assuming its a summary offence and a relatively minor one for Joe Bloggs, say for arguments sake possession of an ecstasy tablet. IE not with intent to supply.

How long typicly would it take between the issuing of the summons and the serving of it? How long would constitute significant "prosecutorial delay" or is this decided by the court?

johnnyskeleton

It depends on the Garda I suppose. For a minor offence, I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't serve it straight away, other than laziness or if the person to be served is avoiding them (e.g. if the acused went off to Australia for a year, the Gardai would have to wait till they come back).

Significant delay depends on the cirucmstances and the reasons offered for the delay, and it generally only applies to delay on the prosecution's side. However the current trends (as I see them) are to allow fairly liberal delays unless they cause a specific prejudice to the accused (e.g. if it was served earlier there would be more evidence available to help the defence) or unless the Gardai have been taking the mickey, so to speak. It is for the courts to decide.

There is no point at which an offender could say "it's been X amount of time since the offence and I've heard nothing, I am now safe". Instead, the more time passes after the 6 months, the less likely it is that a summons will arrive.

Our man in Havana

There can be considerable delay between the issuing and serving. A summons must be served on the accused at least 21 days before the court. I used to be involved in the issuing of summonses and I would obtain the summons within 6 months for a court date well in the future and I would only serve them a month before the date. All nice and legal.

dats_right

johnnyskeleton wrote:

However, where there is a summary (e.g. minor) offence, under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 (or some other old school law), the summons for a summary offence must be issued (as opposed to served) within 6 months of the date of offence.

That is an incorrect statement of the law. The law does not set down any set time limits for the issuing of summonses per se.

A correct statement of the law regarding cases of offences which are triable summarily only, is that the complaint shall be made within six months from the time when the cause of complaint shall have arisen unless the law otherwise provides. Petty Sessions (Ir.) Act 1851, section 10(4) as amended by section 9 of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. Therefore, the crucial date is the date of the making of the complaint to the District Court Judge or to the appropriate District Court Clerk and not the date of the issue of the summons or the date of service on the defendant or the date mentioned on the summons for hearing. Importantly, it must be remembered that whilst this general time limit for the commencement of proceedings applies to most offences which are triable summarily only, there exists a number of such offences where statue has laid down special time limits.

A further important distinction arises were an indictable offence is being tried summarily. As is common with minor; theft, offences against the person and drug offences. Here the law is governed by section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1951, as amended by section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (if indeed this section has been commenced). Effectively and I suppose technically there is no time limit for institution of proceedings in the case of an indictable offence, well that is unless the law provides one and this is so even in the case of an indictable offence being tried summarily. Nevertheless, the fact that there is no express time limit for initiating proceedings for an indictable offence must be considered against the constitutional right to early trial, which entitles an accused to trial with reasonable expedition.

Returning for a moment to the OP's hypothetical situation; well, I suppose the answer to the question really turns on the specific facts and the offence that the accused has been charged with. If it is a summary offence only then the six month rule to make a complaint applies, but if, however it is an indictable offence being tried summarily than there is no express time limit to bringing proceedings, save for the considerations outlined above.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote:

That is an incorrect statement of the law. The law does not set down any set time limits for the issuing of summonses per se.

A correct statement of the law regarding cases of offences which are triable summarily only, is that the complaint shall be made within six months from the time when the cause of complaint shall have arisen unless the law otherwise provides. Petty Sessions (Ir.) Act 1851, section 10(4) as amended by section 9 of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. Therefore, the crucial date is the date of the making of the complaint to the District Court Judge or to the appropriate District Court Clerk and not the date of the issue of the summons

Fair enough, that is how the law is phrased.

However, once a garda lays a valid complaint a summons is usually issued on the same date (it might not be perfected, but it will be issued).

If the garda makes a complaint and the judge is not satisfied of jurisdiction or that the complaint is valid, he will not issue a summons, and a new complaint will have to be made in the correct forum, or with better information. If the second date is out of time, then there is a good defence, even if the first complaint was made in time.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it is the date on which the summons was issued that is important, because other than in very exceptional circumstances, the date of the complaint and issue of the summons will be the same.

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote:

There can be considerable delay between the issuing and serving. A summons must be served on the accused at least 21 days before the court. I used to be involved in the issuing of summonses and I would obtain the summons within 6 months for a court date well in the future and I would only serve them a month before the date. All nice and legal.

This seems to be a common practice. Why is this? (p.m. me if appropriate)

dats_right

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Fair enough, that is how the law is phrased.

In fairness, I think it is more than a mere difference in phrasing. You cannot serioulsy argue that the making of a complaint is the same as the issuing of a summons. They are quite clearly completely different stages of the summons procedure and I can assure you that if you were to attempt to make out you argument in front of a District Judge your argument would be derided, ridiculed and promptly dismissed.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it is the date on which the summons was issued that is important, because other than in very exceptional circumstances, the date of the complaint and issue of the summons will be the same.

Once again that is totally incorrect and misleading. I have already stated the correct position in my previous post, but to be clear the date of issuing of the summons is not the important date rather it is the date that the complaint was made that is crucial and contrary to what you claim, they are not usually the same. As it is most certainly not the norm that a summons issues on the same day that the complaint was made. It can range from a few days to a couple of months but more usually is a week or two from the date a complaint was made to the time the summons issues. For the sake of clarity I would re-state and summarise the position: "the crucial date is the date of the making of the complaint to the District Court Judge or to the appropriate District Court Clerk and not the date of the issue of the summons or the date of service on the defendant or the date mentioned on the summons for hearing". I really can't be any clearer, that is the correct and unambiguous position, no if's, but's or maybe's.

To be sure that I am correct and not misleading anybody, I have taken the liberty of digging up a number of files with District Court Summonses. The format of the summons, is that the issue date is on the right hand side under the Case Number and the complaint date is contained in the body of the summons. Without exception the summons date is later than the complaint date.

I hope that this clarifies and concludes matters.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote:

In fairness, I think it is more than a mere difference in phrasing. You cannot serioulsy argue that the making of a complaint is the same as the issuing of a summons. They are quite clearly completely different stages of the summons procedure and I can assure you that if you were to attempt to make out you argument in front of a District Judge your argument would be derided, ridiculed and promptly dismissed.

I never suggested they are the same thing, nor do I understand how you would think I did. What I said was:

once a garda lays a valid complaint a summons is usually issued on the same date

If a complaint is valid and the judge has jurisdiction, the judge will issue a summons in relation to it there and then.

dats_right wrote:

As it is most certainly not the norm that a summons issues on the same day that the complaint was made. It can range from a few days to a couple of months but more usually is a week or two from the date a complaint was made to the time the summons issues.

...

To be sure that I am correct and not misleading anybody, I have taken the liberty of digging up a number of files with District Court Summonses. The format of the summons, is that the issue date is on the right hand side under the Case Number and the complaint date is contained in the body of the summons. Without exception the summons date is later than the complaint date.

I hope that this clarifies and concludes matters.

I think the source of confusion may be contained in the term "issue". There is a difference between the issue of a summons (i.e. when a judge orders that a person be brought before the court), and when it is perfected and sent out.

For example, if a garda makes a complaint, the judge will "issue" a summons on the same day. The registrar will take note of this, together with the other business of the day, and then that information will be processed by the district court office. An order will be drawn up with the relevant information, then signed, after which it will be sent out.

Although the actual document will not be perfected (i.e. written up and signed) or sent out for some time, the date at which the summons was issued is the date at which the judge orders that a summons should issue. When we speak of the “issue” of a summons in this context, we are not talking about it actually being posted. This is the same with most court orders; they are made when the judge orders them in court, even if the actual documents are not drawn up for some time.

This is the point I'm getting at, because if the judge states that he does not have jurisdiction (e.g. the proceedings should commence in a different district court) he will not issue the summons. The garda can then go to a different judge and request a summons, but if he is out of time at that stage, he cannot claim for the purposes of the time limit that the date of complaint was the previous date.

In any case, a lot of Gardai use the procedure under the Courts Act (no.3) 1986, in which case the relevant date is the date on which an application for a summons was made to the district court office. If that is the point you are making then yes, I stand corrected, it is not, under that procedure, the date of issue, but the date of application that is relevant.

I hope the OP finds this discourse on the intricacies of summons procedure as fascinating as we do .

Our man in Havana

johnnyskeleton wrote:

This seems to be a common practice. Why is this? (p.m. me if appropriate)

There were a few reasons. It was found that if you serve as soon as you get the summons back the accused would forget about the court and not appear. The advice received (from senior management) was to serve between a month and the 21 day limit.

Also it was used to lull the scumbag into a false sense of security thinking he got away with it and then landing the summons in his lap a year later. Priceless to see the look on their faces.

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote:

There were a few reasons. It was found that if you serve as soon as you get the summons back the accused would forget about the court and not appear. The advice received (from senior management) was to serve between a month and the 21 day limit.

Official reason as given in the garda handbook.

Bond-007 wrote:

Also it was used to lull the scumbag into a false sense of security thinking he got away with it and then landing the summons in his lap a year later. Priceless to see the look on their faces.

The REAL reason

Bond-007

Bond-007 wrote:

There were a few reasons. It was found that if you serve as soon as you get the summons back the accused would forget about the court and not appear. The advice received (from senior management) was to serve between a month and the 21 day limit.

This is a summary offense yes?

Bond-007 wrote:

Also it was used to lull the scumbag into a false sense of security thinking he got away with it and then landing the summons in his lap a year later. Priceless to see the look on their faces.

Are these always delivered by hand?

Our man in Havana

ronoc wrote:

This is a summary offense yes?

Yes, nothing too serious parking and road tax offences.

ronoc wrote:

Are these always delivered by hand?

Not always. Registered Post is the prefered method, but personal service is allowed also.

mick_rogers07

It's not a judge that the application or complaint is made to and the summons is issued by, the complaint is made to the D.P.P. and it is the D.P.P. that either does or doesn't issue the summons based on the information that is availible to them at the time. They also take into account the time between the offence happening and the time that the application or complaint is made at and if it exceeds 6 months and 1 day then there is grounds for the accused to try and have it dismissed.

Milk & Honey

mick_rogers07 wrote: »

It's not a judge that the application or complaint is made to and the summons is issued by, the complaint is made to the D.P.P. and it is the D.P.P. that either does or doesn't issue the summons based on the information that is availible to them at the time. They also take into account the time between the offence happening and the time that the application or complaint is made at and if it exceeds 6 months and 1 day then there is grounds for the accused to try and have it dismissed.

You have resurrected a 5 year old thread to state something which is entirely wrong?
The DPP never issues summons. The application is to the District Court Clerk or judge, who then issue the summons. The 6 month limit only applies to purely summary offences only.

Reloc8

mick_rogers07 wrote: »

It's not a judge that the application or complaint is made to and the summons is issued by, the complaint is made to the D.P.P. and it is the D.P.P. that either does or doesn't issue the summons based on the information that is availible to them at the time. They also take into account the time between the offence happening and the time that the application or complaint is made at and if it exceeds 6 months and 1 day then there is grounds for the accused to try and have it dismissed.

Well that's all completely wrong anyway, thanks for playing.

btw...how did it take you from 2007 to now to make a post and you couldn't at least have it be accurate ???

FreudianSlippers

What's with people resurrecting zombie threads these days? It needs to stop.

Maximilian

I declare this thread statute barred.