Indictable offences

Corruptable

I was wondering that with the distinction in criminal law, in practice how is it decided whether to prosecute an offence as either summary or on indictment?

Tom Young

This has been covered here a few times. See S.53 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) 2001.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0053.html#sec53

53.—(1) The District Court may try summarily a person charged with an indictable offence under this Act if—

(a) the Court is of opinion that the facts proved or alleged constitute a minor offence fit to be tried summarily,

(b) the accused, on being informed by the Court of his or her right to be tried with a jury, does not object to being tried summarily, and

(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions consents to the accused being tried summarily for the offence.

(2) On conviction by the District Court for an indictable offence tried summarily under subsection (1) the accused shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both such fine and imprisonment.

Where offences arise in statute with two types of option, they are referred to as hybrid offences and the above rules apply.

Corruptable

Tom Young wrote: »

This has been covered here a few times. See S.53 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) 2001.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0053.html#sec53



Where offences arise in statute with two types of option, they are referred to as hybrid offences and the above rules apply.

Thanks, Tom.

So, for instance, if a Garda arrested a person under s. 9(4) or 9(5) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 in what type of scenario would it lead to trial on indictment?

I'm just curious to get my head around seeing the summary and indictable options in various offences and wondering how it would go to indictment (i.e.: in terms of what criteria of seriousness would be used by the Gardai or DPP wish it to be tried on indictment)

Hope this makes sense.

Tom Young

Corruptable wrote: »

Thanks, Tom.

So, for instance, if a Garda arrested a person under s. 9(4) or 9(5) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 in what type of scenario would it lead to trial on indictment?

I'm just curious to get my head around seeing the summary and indictable options in various offences and wondering how it would go to indictment (i.e.: in terms of what criteria of seriousness would be used by the Gardai or DPP wish it to be tried on indictment)

Hope this makes sense.

(a) the Court is of opinion that the facts proved or alleged DO NOT constitute a minor offence fit to be tried summarily,

(b) the accused, on being informed by the Court of his or her right to be tried with a jury, does object to being tried summarily, and

(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions DOES NOT consent to the accused being tried summarily for the offence.

Kosseegan

Corruptable wrote: »

Thanks, Tom.

So, for instance, if a Garda arrested a person under s. 9(4) or 9(5) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 in what type of scenario would it lead to trial on indictment?

I'm just curious to get my head around seeing the summary and indictable options in various offences and wondering how it would go to indictment (i.e.: in terms of what criteria of seriousness would be used by the Gardai or DPP wish it to be tried on indictment)

Hope this makes sense.

If there were previous offences and if the circumstances looked as if the article was about to be used it would be more likely a trial on indictment. A major factor would be if other offences were being committed at the same time. Eg. possession during a burglary.

If it looked more innocent, such as an item in the bottom of a bag that seemed to be forgotten about and it did not appear as if there was any intention to use it and there was no history of previous offences it would be more likely a trial on indictment.

Tom Young

Kosseegan wrote: »

If there were previous offences and if the circumstances looked as if the article was about to be used it would be more likely a trial on indictment. A major factor would be if other offences were being committed at the same time. Eg. possession during a burglary.

If it looked more innocent, such as an item in the bottom of a bag that seemed to be forgotten about and it did not appear as if there was any intention to use it and there was no history of previous offences it would be more likely a trial on indictment.

Should the last part not read summary trial?

Corruptable

Kosseegan wrote: »

If there were previous offences and if the circumstances looked as if the article was about to be used it would be more likely a trial on indictment. A major factor would be if other offences were being committed at the same time. Eg. possession during a burglary.

If it looked more innocent, such as an item in the bottom of a bag that seemed to be forgotten about and it did not appear as if there was any intention to use it and there was no history of previous offences it would be more likely a trial on indictment.

That's what I was looking for, and so then whether it goes to trial on indictment would be decided by the Court on the principles outlined by Tom.

Tom Young wrote: »

(a) the Court is of opinion that the facts proved or alleged DO NOT constitute a minor offence fit to be tried summarily,

(b) the accused, on being informed by the Court of his or her right to be tried with a jury, does object to being tried summarily, and

(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions DOES NOT consent to the accused being tried summarily for the offence.

I think I understand it now.

Tom Young wrote: »

Should the last part not read summary trial?

That's what I think he meant.

johnnyskeleton

A cynic would say that it depends on how much money the DPP has to spare. A summary prosecution costs her very little to run as most don't even involve a state solicitor. On the other hand, indictable charges require a much longer and more expensive trial.

A significant factor is also whether she thinks that the likely sentence will be longer than 1 year. If not, she may direct summary trial.

coylemj

Corruptable wrote: »

I was wondering that with the distinction in criminal law, in practice how is it decided whether to prosecute an offence as either summary or on indictment?

Can I ask a variation on the original question - what makes an offence indictable in the first place, given that the distinction between felony, misdemeanour and minor offence has been abolished?

It used to be the case that if you were charged with stealing an item worth a penny, you had to be offered the option of a jury trial because it was a felony under the Larceny Act 1916. This meant that shoplifters all had to be offered the right to trial by jury in the Circuit Court, even for stealing a packet of rashers!

I know theft is now covered by the 2001 act but what I want to know is this: If there is no such thing as a felony any more, at what stage is a District Court judge obliged to offer a defendant a jury trial if he is charged with, for example, theft or how does an offence need to be defined in legislation such that the defendant has a right to trial by jury?

ResearchWill

coylemj wrote: »

Can I ask a variation on the original question - what makes an offence indictable in the first place, given that the distinction between felony, misdemeanour and minor offence has been abolished?

It used to be the case that if you were charged with stealing an item worth a penny, you had to be offered the option of a jury trial because it was a felony under the Larceny Act 1916. This meant that shoplifters all had to be offered the right to trial by jury in the Circuit Court, even for stealing a packet of rashers!

I know theft is now covered by the 2001 act but what I want to know is this: If there is no such thing as a felony any more, at what stage is a District Court judge obliged to offer a defendant a jury trial if he is charged with, for example, theft or how does an offence need to be defined in legislation such that the defendant has a right to trial by jury?

There are 3 types of offences, 1 offences that can only be tried on indictment for example rape and murder, 2 hybrid offences these are offences that can be tried either way up to the DPP, the DJ or the accused, 3 summary only, example drink driving.

In relation to your theft question the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 says as follows:

Summary trial of indictable offences.

53.—(1) The District Court may try summarily a person charged with an indictable offence under this Act if—

(a) the Court is of opinion that the facts proved or alleged constitute a minor offence fit to be tried summarily,

(b) the accused, on being informed by the Court of his or her right to be tried with a jury, does not object to being tried summarily, and

(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions consents to the accused being tried summarily for the offence.

(2) On conviction by the District Court for an indictable offence tried summarily under subsection (1) the accused shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both such fine and imprisonment.

Farcear

The Act that created the relevant offence will specify whether it is summary trial, trial on indictment or if the accused has an option.

coylemj

ResearchWill wrote: »

In relation to your theft question the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 says as follows:

Summary trial of indictable offences.

53.—(1) The District Court may try summarily a person charged with an indictable offence under this Act if—
...
...
...

That procedure has been in place since at least the Criminal Justice Act 1951 (see S.2) but that doesn't answer the question I asked which is: what makes an offence indictable in the first place, given that the law no longer recognises felonies and misdeamenours?

I think Farcear has answered the question.

ResearchWill

coylemj wrote: »

That procedure has been in place since at least the Criminal Justice Act 1951 (see S.2) but that doesn't answer the question I asked which is: what makes an offence indictable in the first place, given that the law no longer recognises felonies and misdeamenours?

I think Farcear has answered the question.

The reason I quoted the theft and fraud offences is that most offences in it are indictable like Section 4 ss (6) theft which says as follows

(6) A person guilty of theft is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

So then without the saver in section 53 all theft charges under the 2001 Act would have been indictable. Which was the question you asked. I thought you had read section 4 hence your question.

So in relation to your question re theft, it is indictable by reference to section 4, but section 53 allows the DJ to deal with it if the DPP agrees, the Defendant has been informed of his right to election and the judge on the facts agrees that it is summary.

Tom Young

Is the answer that indictable offences are offences that fall into the category of more serious, attracting a prison term of 5 years minimum as defined in and by the Criminal Law Act 1997 and the Bail Act 199[7], S.1.

ResearchWill

Tom Young wrote: »

Is the answer that indictable offences are offences that fall into the category of more serious, attracting a prison term of 5 years minimum as defined in and by the Criminal Law Act 1997 and the Bail Act 1991.

Well in general any offences which has a prison sentence of 5 years can not be a summary offence as the DC can't impose a sentence of more than one year.

For example a section 3 assault causing harm is a hybrid offence as set out in the act.



Assault causing harm.

3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

As you can see it has a max sentence of 5 years on indictment there are a number of such offences that have max sentences of 5 years or less that are indictable. Another example is section 8 of theft and fraud offences on indictment is 2 years max.

In fact assault is a good example section 2 is summary only as set out in the act, section 3 is hybrid can be one or the other and section 4 causing serious harm is indictment only.

Tom Young

Citizens Information says:http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/classification_of_crimes_in_criminal_cases.html

coylemj

So dealing with the general issue and not just confining ourselves to theft, it appears to me that an offence is indictable if either of the following applies....

1. There is only one maximum sentence mentioned in the act and it is above the limit for the District Court.

or

2. The penalties are described in terms of a maximum penalty on summary conviction and a different (obviously greater) maximum penalty for conviction on indictment.

In both of which cases the defendant would have to be advised of his right to trial by jury in the event that the DJ decided to hear the case if the other conditions are met.

and of course we're not discussing Common Law crimes and crimes that by law are reserved for the Central Criminal Court.

Farcear

coylemj wrote: »

1. There is only one maximum sentence mentioned in the act and it is above the limit for the District Court.

If there is only one penalty, the Act will always tell you if it is summary or indictable.

No need to go looking at District Court limits; although if the summary penalty exceeds the limit of the District Court you would have a constitutional law issue on your hands.

coylemj wrote: »

2. The penalties are described in terms of a maximum penalty on summary conviction and a different (obviously greater) maximum penalty for conviction on indictment.

As a matter of semantics, offences with two penalties are usually termed "hybrid offences" (see earlier post). "Indictable offences" usually means just those offences where you can only be tried on indictment. Although, I see where you are coming from.

---

If I am interpreting your overall query correctly...

An accused can get (either optionally or mandatory) trial on indictment in every case except for:

1. statutory offences;
2. which have only one penalty listed; and
3. that penalty is only stated to be following summary conviction.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

ResearchWill wrote: »

In relation to your theft question the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 says as follows:

Summary trial of indictable offences.

53.—(1) The District Court may try summarily a person charged with an indictable offence under this Act if—
...
...
...

That procedure has been in place since at least the Criminal Justice Act 1951 (see S.2) but that doesn't answer the question I asked which is: what makes an offence indictable in the first place, given that the law no longer recognises felonies and misdeamenours?

I think Farcear has answered the question.

I think it's hard to figure out exactly what you are askig (not your fault, just due to the nature of the terminology etc).

At common law, all offences are indictable and unless there is a specific statutory jurisdiction to try it summarily, it must be tried on indictment. Some misdemeanors were indictable as well.

When the modern criminal law was being created every crime was a common law crime, every crime was serious, and every crime was tried by a primative form of jury. I think the bill of rights in the uk ensures trial by jury. As more minor and regulatory acts were prohibited they needed a new system to try these offences and summary jurisdiction was born. It has, however, always been a creature of statute.

Ultimately it is a matter for the legislature to decide what offences can have a statutory jurisdiction with the saver that the courts can take the view that despite the statutory designation, the offence is so serious that it cannot be treated as a summary offence.

The one exception to this is that some of the most serious offences are tried summarily in the scc in a jurisdiction that is highly suspect but so far has passed constitutional and echr scrutiny.

ResearchWill

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think it's hard to figure out exactly what you are askig (not your fault, just due to the nature of the terminology etc).

At common law, all offences are indictable and unless there is a specific statutory jurisdiction to try it summarily, it must be tried on indictment. Some misdemeanors were indictable as well.

When the modern criminal law was being created every crime was a common law crime, every crime was serious, and every crime was tried by a primative form of jury. I think the bill of rights in the uk ensures trial by jury. As more minor and regulatory acts were prohibited they needed a new system to try these offences and summary jurisdiction was born. It has, however, always been a creature of statute.

Ultimately it is a matter for the legislature to decide what offences can have a statutory jurisdiction with the saver that the courts can take the view that despite the statutory designation, the offence is so serious that it cannot be treated as a summary offence.

The one exception to this is that some of the most serious offences are tried summarily in the scc in a jurisdiction that is highly suspect but so far has passed constitutional and echr scrutiny.

Agree with your post except last paragraph, the SCC does not try summary cases, yes it is a court with out a jury, it has three judges one high one circuit and one district.

The constitution in article 38 2 describes summary matters as minor, while in article 38 3 Establishes the SCC or at least the jurisdiction for the SCC. The SCC only deals with very serious terrorist and gangland crimes.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think it's hard to figure out exactly what you are askig (not your fault, just due to the nature of the terminology etc).

I understand the history of the criminal law. The point that perhaps I haven't stated clearly enough is that before the distinction between felonies, misdemeanours and minor offences was removed, every offence defined by statute was stated to be either a felony, misdemeanour or minor offence.

That meant that there was no issue when a person came before the courts, an offence stated to be just an 'offence' with penalties below the DC limits was tried in the District Court, a felony or misdemeanour mentioned in the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1951 could be tried in the DC if the various conditions were met, otherwise it had to be sent forward for a jury trial (or the SCC if the DP so directed).

Now that the law doesn't define crimes in the three categories any more, I just wondered how the courts come to the conclusion that a crime is indictable and I guess it's down to the penalty laid down in the act which if it mentions a penalty for a 'conviction on indictment' means that the offence is indictable.

coylemj

ResearchWill wrote: »

Agree with your post except last paragraph, the SCC does not try summary cases, yes it is a court with out a jury, it has three judges one high one circuit and one district.

But can be composed of any of these people....

(3) No person shall be appointed to be a member of a Special Criminal Court unless he is a judge of the High Court or the Circuit Court, or a justice of the District Court, or a barrister of not less than seven years standing, or a solicitor of not less than seven years standing, or an officer of the Defence Forces not below the rank of commandant.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0039.html#sec39

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ultimately it is a matter for the legislature to decide what offences can have a statutory jurisdiction with the saver that the courts can take the view that despite the statutory designation, the offence is so serious that it cannot be treated as a summary offence.

But it's not open to a DJ to send a summary offence like drink driving to trial in the Circuit Court. What I mean is that in the case of an offence with no penalty for conviction on indictment and with a maximum penalty below the DC limit, it's not a matter for the DJ to decide no matter how serious he thinks the offence is, he has to accept jurisdiction.

A DJ can take on an indictable offence if he thinks the facts constitute a minor offence and the other conditions are met but he can't do it in reverse i.e. look at a summons or charge sheet for a minor offence and decide that it's too serious for the DC. It's only indictable if the legislature says so, the judge can't make it indictable.

ResearchWill

coylemj wrote: »

But can be composed of any of these people....

(3) No person shall be appointed to be a member of a Special Criminal Court unless he is a judge of the High Court or the Circuit Court, or a justice of the District Court, or a barrister of not less than seven years standing, or a solicitor of not less than seven years standing, or an officer of the Defence Forces not below the rank of commandant.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0039.html#sec39

The only current judges are I believe are high circuit and district, I may be mistaken but they usually sit 1 HC 1CC 1 DC.

http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/Library3.nsf/pagecurrent/41C06A30E5FEDA7B80256D870050508C

ResearchWill

coylemj wrote: »

But it's not open to a DJ to send a summary offence like drink driving to trial in the Circuit Court. What I mean is that in the case of an offence with no penalty for conviction on indictment and with a maximum penalty below the DC limit, it's not a matter for the DJ to decide no matter how serious he thinks the offence is, he has to accept jurisdiction.

A DJ can take on an indictable offence if he thinks the facts constitute a minor offence and the other conditions are met but he can't do it in reverse i.e. look at a summons or charge sheet for a minor offence and decide that it's too serious for the DC. It's only indictable if the legislature says so, the judge can't make it indictable.

A DJ can only deal with a matter that can be indictable if given the power by statute. As set out in the theft example section 4 only allows indictable with max 10 years, then section 53 allows a saver to allow summary disposal. Some acts have summary and indictable in the section example section 3 assault causing harm.

In relation to summary only you are correct the DJ can not send it forward, drink driving being summary only was challenged back in the 60's in a case called Conroy. It said a punishmrnt of a ban for life was not a penalty.

coylemj

ResearchWill wrote: »

The only current judges are I believe are high circuit and district, I may be mistaken but they usually sit 1 HC 1CC 1 DC.

http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/Library3.nsf/pagecurrent/41C06A30E5FEDA7B80256D870050508C

Correct, that is how it has sat since it was reconstituted by Dessie O'Malley in the 1970s. The DJ used to be referred to as 'My Lord' in order that they were all seen to be equal even though at the time only judges of the CC and higher required that form of address.

johnnyskeleton

ResearchWill wrote: »

Agree with your post except last paragraph, the SCC does not try summary cases, yes it is a court with out a jury, it has three judges one high one circuit and one district.

The constitution in article 38 2 describes summary matters as minor, while in article 38 3 Establishes the SCC or at least the jurisdiction for the SCC. The SCC only deals with very serious terrorist and gangland crimes.

Summary trial does not mean the trial of minor matters, it means a trial that is expedited and less than a full trial, in a criminal context it is without a jury. Article 38 says that minor matters can be tried summarily, that does not mean that summary matters are minor.

As to the SCC only dealing with very serious terrorist and gangland crimes, that's a matter of political opinion. It usually does, but that doesn't mean it isn't open to abuse. The SCC deals with cases which, in the opinion of the DPP, the normal courts are inadequate to deal with them. That's what makes it so special.

ResearchWill

coylemj wrote: »

Correct, that is how it has sat since it was reconstituted by Dessie O'Malley in the 1970s. The DJ used to be referred to as 'My Lord' in order that they were all seen to be equal even though at the time only judges of the CC and higher required that form of address.

Interesting I can imagine that created a huge issue at the time.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

But it's not open to a DJ to send a summary offence like drink driving to trial in the Circuit Court. What I mean is that in the case of an offence with no penalty for conviction on indictment and with a maximum penalty below the DC limit, it's not a matter for the DJ to decide no matter how serious he thinks the offence is, he has to accept jurisdiction.

A DJ can take on an indictable offence if he thinks the facts constitute a minor offence and the other conditions are met but he can't do it in reverse i.e. look at a summons or charge sheet for a minor offence and decide that it's too serious for the DC. It's only indictable if the legislature says so, the judge can't make it indictable.

In those circumstances, the section which creates the summary jurisdiction can be challenged in the high court as being contrary to article 38 (Melling v O Mathghamhan).

But, while I appreciate that this argument may sound somewhat academic, you have it backwards. It is only summary if the legislature says so, in the absence of clear wording it is indictable.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Summary trial does not mean the trial of minor matters, it means a trial that is expedited and less than a full trial, in a criminal context it is without a jury. Article 38 says that minor matters can be tried summarily, that does not mean that summary matters are minor.

But if a crime is defined as an 'offence' with no mention of a penalty for conviction on indictment and the maximum penalty is below the DC max. then by definition it is a 'minor' offence and can and must be dealt with by the DC.

And if it is indictable, the law say that the court must consider the facts 'as alleged' constitute a minor offence before the DC can accept jurisdiction.

So by definition, anything dealt with in the DC is a minor offence.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

I understand the history of the criminal law. The point that perhaps I haven't stated clearly enough is that before the distinction between felonies, misdemeanours and minor offences was removed, every offence defined by statute was stated to be either a felony, misdemeanour or minor offence.

That meant that there was no issue when a person came before the courts, an offence stated to be just an 'offence' with penalties below the DC limits was tried in the District Court, a felony or misdemeanour mentioned in the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1951 could be tried in the DC if the various conditions were met, otherwise it had to be sent forward for a jury trial (or the SCC if the DP so directed).

I don't think that is correct. Any summary jurisdiction had to be expressly provided for in statute, as was frequently done in Pre-1922 statutes. Subsequently UK law appears to accept your proposition but Irish law is unclear at best and against that view at worst. All modern statutes provide for clear modes of trial but, in default of an express power for summary trial, Article 38 requires the case to be tried on indictment.

Now that the law doesn't define crimes in the three categories any more, I just wondered how the courts come to the conclusion that a crime is indictable and I guess it's down to the penalty laid down in the act which if it mentions a penalty for a 'conviction on indictment' means that the offence is indictable.

Penalty is just one of the indicia of a serious offence, albeit the main one. Other issues are whether it is an offence of moral torpitude, whether it is a mere regulatory offence or a "proper" crime (for want of a better term, Mr. Justice Hardiman has used the phrase "a true crime" before), etc.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

But if a crime is defined as an 'offence' with no mention of a penalty for conviction on indictment and the maximum penalty is below the DC max. then by definition it is a 'minor' offence and can and must be dealt with by the DC.

And if it is indictable, the law say that the court must consider the facts 'as alleged' constitute a minor offence before the DC can accept jurisdiction.

Well I've already set out that in default it is indictable and you don't accept that. Let's leave it there.

coylemj wrote: »

So by definition, anything dealt with in the DC is a minor offence.

Yes, but it does not follow that anything minor must be dealt with in the DC.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes, but it does not follow that anything minor must be dealt with in the DC.

Can you quote an example where a DC refused jurisdiction in a case where the alleged offence was not defined as indictable and the maximum penalty was below the DC Max?

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

Can you quote an example where a DC refused jurisdiction in a case where the alleged offence was not defined as indictable and the maximum penalty was below the DC Max?

No, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Can you quote an example to the contrary?

If you don't agree with me that's fine.

It might just be easier if you read a text book or McEvitt v Delap.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Can you quote an example to the contrary?

Didn't think so. No, I can't prove an example to the contrary and you have no right to throw it back and expect me to as that would be proving a negative.

Can I prove that no simple drunk driving or similar case was ever sent up for trial to the CC? No I can't but I don't have to, you're the one claiming such a thing can happen but can't produce a single instance where it did and your riposte is to ask me to prove the negative.

Clearly you have the belief in your own righteousness and are only lacking in the facts to back it up.

ResearchWill

coylemj wrote: »

Didn't think so. No, I can't prove an example to the contrary and you have no right to throw it back and expect me to as that would be proving a negative.

Can I prove that no simple drunk driving or similar case was ever sent up for trial to the CC? No I can't but I don't have to, you're the one claiming such a thing can happen but can't produce a single instance where it did and your riposte is to ask me to prove the negative.

Clearly you have the belief in your own righteousness and are only lacking in the facts to back it up.

In your example for Drink Driving such cases are set by the legislation as summary only the original section 49 " (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or, at the discretion of the court, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine."


Section 30 of the 1933 Act "30.—(1) Every person who drives or attempts to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he is drunk shall be guilty of an offence under this section and on summary conviction thereof shall be liable, in the case of a first offence under this section, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment and, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence under this section to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment."

In fact in the case of conroy it was decided that a disquilification for life was not a penalty so therefore no right to a jury trial, (in light of the current view of drink driving and the loss of the right to drive and recent decisions of ECHR, the courts here may now decide it differently) BTW Conroy tried to force a jury trial, same was rejected as its a offence that can only be tried in DC you have no right of election.

My understanding is that for any criminal offence you have a right to jury trial, except now in minor offences where the oireachteas has only allowed summary disposal. Certain offences ie murder, rape, treason etc can only be a jury trial. Then a number of offences can be either depending on the opinion, of the accused (in some cases) the DPP and the DJ.

So a section 3 NFOAP can be in certain circumstances be minor and in others serious hence it's hybrid.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Can you quote an example to the contrary?

Didn't think so. No, I can't prove an example to the contrary and you have no right to throw it back and expect me to as that would be proving a negative.

Can I prove that no simple drunk driving or similar case was ever sent up for trial to the CC? No I can't but I don't have to, you're the one claiming such a thing can happen but can't produce a single instance where it did and your riposte is to ask me to prove the negative.

Clearly you have the belief in your own righteousness and are only lacking in the facts to back it up.

Drink driving has a mode of trial specified in it. What is your basis for asserting that the district court can look at a criminal offence and, without specific statutory power to do so, proceed to try the offence based on an assessment of the punishment?

But your example is not the contrary to what I've said, can you point to an example of a judge accepting summary jurisdiction where no provision for summary jurisdiction is made by statute?

You keep trying to twist your original point but I've already given you the name of the case that supports my view and you have completely ignored it.

The main reason I can give you a case as requested is that I'm not bothered doing your research for you.