"the DPP had directed summary disposal"

feckinguards

Can anyone explain exactly what this means?

the DPP had directed summary disposal

And how is it different from

the DPP had consented to the matter being dealt with summarily

And is one "worse" or more serious than the other?

Thanks

Cody Pomeray

summary = district court; no jury; the alternative would be indictable offences, which will be tried in a higher court, with a jury, unless it's a hybrid offence (can be tried summarily or on indictment,e.g. s 15 misuse of drugs act).

If it's a hybrid offence, the DPP can consent/direct that it be tried summarily, provided that the district court accepts jurisdiction.

'Consent' might refer to a situation where a guy pleads guilty to an indictable offence and wants summary trial and judge says to counsel for the DPP "do you want to proceed with this summarily?" and counsel say yes.

"direct" would relate to where the decision originates from the DPP. I can't really perceive a big substantive difference but you can make up your own mind

johnnyskeleton

In law some offences have provision for summary and indictable disposal eg assault causing harm. In such cases, the dpp has to direct which of the two options she is taking. Hence directs summary disposal. These are, if you like, pure hybrid offences.

Consent comes from provisions that allow what would ordinarily be an indictable offence to be tried summarily if the judge deems it fit, if the accused doesn't object and the dpp consents:

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

In reality it makes no difference because even under the s53 procedure a judge will ask the dpp for directions before deciding jurisdiction and the dpp will say they direct or consent as purely a matter of style rather than a strict adherence to the words used in the statute.

coylemj

I don't think either of the posts above have answered the question implicit in the OP's post.....

When/under what circumstances can the DPP direct that a case be disposed of summarily?

I know that a defendant can elect for trial by jury in the case of an indictable offence or (regardless of what the defendant opts for), the DPP can issue a writ of indictment to force a DJ to send a case to the Circuit Court or the DJ can refuse to accept jurisdiction but can it ever happen that one or all of those apply but the DPP directs that it be disposed of in the District Court?

My take is that the DPP can consent to summary disposal but if any one of the three conditions described above applies, the case has to go to the Circuit Court so the DPP has no power to direct that it be disposed of summarily.

intospace

coylemj wrote: »

I don't think either of the posts above have answered the question implicit in the OP's post.....

the DPP can issue a writ of indictment to force a DJ to send a case to the Circuit Court.

could you elaborate on this point.

are you referring to scheduled offences under part v of the offences against state act, where the ordinary courts are deemed inadequate to secure the administration of justice & preservation of public peace etc..?

Cody Pomeray

what exactly is a writ of indictment?

Individually I know what the words mean, I've just never heard of that term. A google search only throws up this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75036903

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

what exactly is a writ of indictment?

Individually I know what the words mean, I've just never heard of that term. A google search only throws up this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75036903

It is simply the piece of paper that sets out the indictment. It will be headed up DPP v X Y, and will set out each charge on the indictment. Each charge must be supported by the evidence set out in the "book of evidence". The indictment can be amended simply by serving a new one, up until the commencement, of the trial. But any new charge must also be supported by the "Book of Evidence".

Cold Sore

coylemj wrote: »

I don't think either of the posts above have answered the question implicit in the OP's post.....

When/under what circumstances can the DPP direct that a case be disposed of summarily?

I know that a defendant can elect for trial by jury in the case of an indictable offence or (regardless of what the defendant opts for), the DPP can issue a writ of indictment to force a DJ to send a case to the Circuit Court or the DJ can refuse to accept jurisdiction but can it ever happen that one or all of those apply but the DPP directs that it be disposed of in the District Court?

My take is that the DPP can consent to summary disposal but if any one of the three conditions described above applies, the case has to go to the Circuit Court so the DPP has no power to direct that it be disposed of summarily.

In the case of some offences such as Unwarranted demands with menaces under the Public Order Act, it is a matter for the prosecutor which mode of trial is adopted. The DJ and the Defendant have no say. That is a direction for
summary disposal.
In other offences such as theft which are indictable but triable summarily the matter can only be tried summarily if the Dpp consents. The DJ can refuse jurisdiction and the accused can also, when put on election, refuse a summary trial. The DPP has no say if this happens other than to decide whether or not to go ahead with a trial on indictment.

Cody Pomeray

infosys wrote: »

It is simply the piece of paper that sets out the indictment. It will be headed up DPP v X Y, and will set out each charge on the indictment. Each charge must be supported by the evidence set out in the "book of evidence". The indictment can be amended simply by serving a new one, up until the commencement, of the trial. But any new charge must also be supported by the "Book of Evidence".

I know, I'm specifically referring to the word writ.

I've never heard the term 'writ of indictment' being used in common parlance. People just say 'indictment' or sometimes, 'bill of indictment'; I'm just wondering whether coylemj's information is outdated or, to be honest, whether it was ever relevant.

I mean I just don't see in what circumstances the situation he describes would arise. At least, not in the modern era. Has anyone ever seen a tug of war between the DPP and a district judge? Like why, or how, would that even happen?

coylemj

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Has anyone ever seen a tug of war between the DPP and a district judge? Like why, or how, would that even happen?

Guy is arrested (he was caught red-handed) for what looks like a minor burglary but it turns out he was only released from prison the previous day and has a string of previous convictions. Of course none of this can be mentioned in the District Court before the case is heard so the defendant is more than happy to waive his right to a trial by jury and the DJ will probably accept jurisdiction.

In that situation the Gardai could ask the DPP to force the DJ to send it up to the Circuit Court so that he can get a more severe sentence than the DJ can hand down.

My terminology might be out of date as you suggest, it used to be called a 'writ (bill?) of indictment'.

Cody Pomeray

But surely the DPP or the prosecuting Garda would have already known this before electing for summary disposal, and later changing their mind??

Well quite apart from the likelihood of that situation arising, once the district court has accepted jurisdiction based on the facts, he would not be in a posiiton to refuse jurisdiction upon becoming aware of the accused's conviction history.

That is not a legitimate factor to take into account.

coylemj

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But surely the DPP or the prosecuting Garda would have already known this before electing for summary disposal, and later changing their mind??

Well quite apart from the likelihood of that situation arising, once the district court has accepted jurisdiction based on the facts, he would not be in a posiiton to refuse jurisdiction upon becoming aware of the accused's conviction history.

That is not a legitimate factor to take into account.

I'm probably out of date in that case. It used to be the case with 'ordinary' (non-scheduled) indictable crimes like larceny and burglary that if the DJ was prepared to accept jurisdiction and the accused did not elect for a trial by jury, the DPP was not asked to consent to summary disposal and the DJ would go ahead and hear the case. In such a case, nobody asked the prosecuting Garda if the DPP consented to summary disposal.

The DPP could force the DJ to send it up to the Circuit Court if the Gardai or the State Solicitor pursued this option but otherwise he wasn't involved. Only in the case of offences scheduled under the Offences Against the State Act was the DPP's consent required for summary disposal.

Cody Pomeray

If a hybrid case like that did arise, then yes the DPP could send the accused forward to the circuit court for trial, where a district judge has accepted (and would prefer to retain) jurisdiction, but the DPP may only do this where new facts emerge that are directly relevant to the case, e.g. in the case of a s.15 misuse of drugs act, new drugs are uncovered which change the gravity of the charge.

Nevertheless, where an accused appears before the district court on a hybrid offence to be tried summarily, and the judge accepts jurisdiction, neither the DPP nor the judge is in a position to send the accused forward for trial to the circuit court based solely on new information coming to light about the accused generally. E.g. if John Gullygun appears before the district court under s.15 misuse of drugs act where the court has accepted jurisdiction, Mr Gullygun cannot be sent forward to the circuit court merely because it later transpires, during the course of the hearing, that he is a scandalous villain.

I have never heard of the prosecutor changing horses in that way, regardless of whose suit it is, but I accept that it is a possibility.

The only time I have ever heard of a genuine legal conundrum between such jurisdiction is in family law, with both the circuit and district court vying for jurisdiction. As far as I know there is no clear rule on jurisdiction in cases where there is a real tug of war between those respective courts.

coylemj

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Mr Gullygun cannot be sent forward to the circuit court merely because it later transpires, during the course of the hearing, that he is a scandalous villain.

I have never heard of the prosecutor changing horses in that way, regardless of whose suit it is, but I accept that it is a possibility.

I never suggested that the DPP directs that the case be sent to the CC after the hearing began in the DC. I'm talking about a situation where facts known to the Gardai and which can not be disclosed to the DJ until after he is found guilty, would (in the opinion of the DPP) justify sending the case to the CC in order that the judge would be able to impose a more severe sentence than can be handed down in the DC.

So if the situation arose whereby the DJ accepts jurisdiction and the accused does not object to summary disposal, the Garda or State Solicitor would then ask for an adjournment to consult the DPP.

McCongo

coylemj wrote: »

I'm probably out of date in that case. It used to be the case with 'ordinary' (non-scheduled) indictable crimes like larceny and burglary that if the DJ was prepared to accept jurisdiction and the accused did not elect for a trial by jury, the DPP was not asked to consent to summary disposal and the DJ would go ahead and hear the case. In such a case, nobody asked the prosecuting Garda if the DPP consented to summary disposal.

The DPP could force the DJ to send it up to the Circuit Court if the Gardai or the State Solicitor pursued this option but otherwise he wasn't involved. Only in the case of offences scheduled under the Offences Against the State Act was the DPP's consent required for summary disposal.

That is not the case. The Theft Act requires the consent of the DPP to all summary disposals of charges under that act. It also allows the Garda to give oral evidence of the DPPs instructions. The DPP has given the garda a blanket instruction to prosecute summarily in low value Theft charges. This is so the DPP is not swamped with requests for consent every time some shoplifter is arrested with €10 worth of stolen goods.

If there is no consent to summary disposal a book of evidence must be served. The DJ must send it forward. If he doesn't the AG can force it.

Cody Pomeray

coylemj wrote: »

So if the situation arose whereby the DJ accepts jurisdiction and the accused does not object to summary disposal, the Garda or State Solicitor would then ask for an adjournment to consult the DPP.

That's an interesting scenario, I don't actually know what the correct procedure is, if a case like that arose.

The problem being that the judge has accepted jurisdiction (on the prelim facts of case at hand alone), and no new facts have emerged from the point of view of the Garda bringing the suit, he being fully within his rights to do so. I would doubt that the DPP could simply elect to move the case forward, but I am open to being corrected on that.

Cold Sore

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's an interesting scenario, I don't actually know what the correct procedure is, if a case like that arose.

The problem being that the judge has accepted jurisdiction (on the prelim facts of case at hand alone), and no new facts have emerged from the point of view of the Garda bringing the suit, he being fully within his rights to do so. I would doubt that the DPP could simply elect to move the case forward, but I am open to being corrected on that.

It can't happen. For the District Court to have jurisdiction to try an indictable offence summarily the consent of the DPP is required. That has to be indicated before the trial starts. The guards might avail of their standing instruction and not actually tell the DPP but they have to tell the court what the case can be tried summarily. That is the procedure laid down in the 1951 Act and repeated in the Theft Act and possibly other statutes.

coylemj

Cold Sore wrote: »

It can't happen. For the District Court to have jurisdiction to try an indictable offence summarily the consent of the DPP is required. That has to be indicated before the trial starts. The guards might avail of their standing instruction and not actually tell the DPP but they have to tell the court what the case can be tried summarily. That is the procedure laid down in the 1951 Act and repeated in the Theft Act and possibly other statutes.

The 1951 act says that the consent of the AG (now the DPP) is only required for offences 1, 2 and 3 specified in the first schedule which are as follows...

1. An offence in the nature of a public mischief.
2. An indictable offence consisting of any form of obstruction of the administration of justice or the enforcement of the law.
3. Perjury.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1951/en/act/pub/0002/sec0002.html#sec2

Otherwise (before the Theft Act), the District Court only needed the DPP's consent to deal with offences scheduled under the Offences Against the State Act 1939. This meant that the vast majority of larcenies and minor assaults were dealt with in the District Court with no reference to the DPP.

Cold Sore

coylemj wrote: »

The 1951 act says that the consent of the AG (now the DPP) is only required for offences 1, 2 and 3 specified in the first schedule which are as follows...

1. An offence in the nature of a public mischief.
2. An indictable offence consisting of any form of obstruction of the administration of justice or the enforcement of the law.
3. Perjury.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1951/en/act/pub/0002/sec0002.html#sec2

Otherwise (before the Theft Act), the District Court only needed the DPP's consent to deal with offences scheduled under the Offences Against the State Act 1939. This meant that the vast majority of larcenies and minor assaults were dealt with in the District Court with no reference to the DPP.

There are now two versions of most offences. A summary offence and an indictable offence. Eg assault. The larceny offences had to be under £50 to be scheduled. Once a judge within jurisdiction starts a trial there is not much the DPP can do about it other than withdraw the charge at hearing. This may prejudice a subsequent trial if evidence has been heard.

Cody Pomeray

Cold Sore wrote: »

It can't happen.

Well that is what I have been saying. Without going to the trouble of going through the statute book with a fine tooth comb, I am saying that if the situation were to arise as coylemj describes it, the DPP would still be constrained by other factors, where a judge is within jurisdiction on the preliminary facts alone.

As you say, the prosecution could thereafter simply be withdrawn, but I disagree on the likelihood of this prejudicing any subsequent trial, and suggest withdrawal is the most likely outcome where this situation could even arise.