Criminal Law Case Note Question

gatorade

Can anyone please explain to me how in the case of ''The Registrar of Companies v District Judge Anderson and System Partners Limited'' the 2nd named defendant can still be prosecuted in criminal law when the sanction imposed was found to be a mere administrative fee.

Tom Young

Murray C.J:

If the company feel aggrieved that the administrative process by which they were required to pay late entry fees imposed a criminal penalty in denial of their constitutional rights, then it has been open to them to challenge that statutory consequence. But that is a different matter to be taken up in different proceedings.

A District Judge must proceed on the basis of the presumption of constitutionality of an act of the Oireachtas. Accordingly, there having been no prior criminal prosecution, no charge, no conviction or acquittal, the second named respondent was incorrect in holding that the prosecution pending before him was affected by the question of double jeopardy. Accordingly, I conclude that he was wrong in law in striking out the summonses and in failing to hear and determine the proceedings brought on foot of them.

For the reasons stated I would allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Judge striking out the summonses and make the necessary order requiring him to hear and determine the matters before him.

The learned High Court judge questioned whether there was a difference between a criminal sanction and an administrative section, both arising out of a breach of statute. Counsel for the Appellant relied on the case of McLoughlin –v- Tuite, The Revenue Commissioners –v- The Attorney General in which, to put it in broad terms at this stage, the distinction between an administrative sanction and a penal sanction was recognised.

The learned High Court distinguished the McLoughlin case from the present case on the basis that double jeopardy was not an issue in the McLoughlin case as there was no power in the income tax legislation to prosecute as well as impose a penalty. His concern was that this particular offence gives rise to a criminal sanction when there is already a sanction in place. He concluded that the second named respondent was correct and refused the relief sought.

That in tandem with the cited acts, allowing for double prosecution answers the question.

Importantly the Super Court did not find that res jud or double jeopardy arose.

Geoghegan J. Judgment is as clear: http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/1984fd5624e8e19e80256f700060f2b3?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,anderson

Tom