Time limit for prosecution

osprey

Failing to produce insurance certificates and driving licenses within ten days at a station of your choosing will no doubt invite a summons to a district court. However, if summons' are issued after six months, are they invalid?

Little CuChulainn

Not necessarily.

osprey

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Not necessarily.

That's a bit vague! But, how so?

coylemj

osprey wrote: »

That's a bit vague! But, how so?

The Gardai could apply for the summons to be issued before just 6 months elapses, it's possible that the court would then issue the summons after 6 months had elapsed but you wouldn't have a case to have them struck out under the statute of limitations as the process would have commenced before 6 months had elapsed.

jimmycrackcorm

coylemj wrote:

The Gardai could apply for the summons to be issued before just 6 months elapses, it's possible that the court would then issue the summons after 6 months had elapsed but you wouldn't have a case to have them struck out under the statute of limitations as the process would have commenced before 6 months had elapsed.

How long would that take though? I'm curious because my Mrs got a speeding ticket in March but never realized until I cleaned up our hallway a few weeks ago and found an unopened speeding ticket. I understood that there's an automatic summons if you don't pay the ticket after 56 days? Incidentally it was a hair dryer ticket and not a Speed van so perhaps the Garda who stopped her has to follow through. But its over 7 months now.

Peregrinus

The time limit is for the issue of the summons. As long as it was issued within the time limit (or, as coylemj point out) just after that, some time could elapse before it is served. Perhaps when the guards clean their hallway they'll find an unserved summons!

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

The time limit is for the issue of the summons. As long as it was issued within the time limit (or, as coylemj point out) just after that, some time could elapse before it is served. Perhaps when the guards clean their hallway they'll find an unserved summons!

The key date is the date of application for the summons. Once it was applied for within the 6 month limit there is no problem. It is not the Statute of Limitations which is relevant . It is the petty Sessions ireland Act 1851 as amended by the Courts No 2 Act 1986. There have been many cases where the summons is applied for just before the expiry of the 6 months, is not issued untilk after the 6 months and the person is not before the court for almost a year after the offence. It has been upheld in challenges on the basis of the 6 month limit.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Once the summons has been issued, is there a time limit for serving it?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

osprey

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is a quote from the citizensinformation.ie site "In the case of a summary offence (an offence tried in the District Court before a judge without a jury) the Gardaí must make a complaint to the District Court within six months of the offence being committed. These offences include most Road Traffic Offences like speeding, illegal parking and fixed charge notice offences"

Between the replies above and the contradictory statement quoted here, I am left confused ...

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

4ensic15

osprey wrote: »

This is a quote from the citizensinformation.ie site "In the case of a summary offence (an offence tried in the District Court before a judge without a jury) the Gardaí must make a complaint to the District Court within six months of the offence being committed. These offences include most Road Traffic Offences like speeding, illegal parking and fixed charge notice offences"

Between the replies above and the contradictory statement quoted here, I am left confused ...

The Courts No 3 Act 1986 makes the application for the summons the date of the complaint. This is an administrative procedure of applying for a summons.
THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

PROSECUTOR
AND

GABRIEL O'BRIEN CRANE HIRE LTD.

ACCUSED
"The word "complaint" contained in Section 52 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 refers to a complaint made to the District Court pursuant to the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 (as amended) both when the jurisdiction of the District Court is invoked by the making of a complaint to a person duly authorised to receive it and when it is invoked by the operation of the procedure set out in Section 1 of the Courts ( No.3) Act, 1986 ."

In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Nolan [1990] 2 I.R. 526, the defendant was summonsed to appear before the District Court pursuant to the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1986. The application for the summons pursuant to that Act was made and a summons was issued within six months of the date of the alleged offence, but the date of the court hearing did not occur until more than six months after the date of the alleged offence. The summons was struck out by the District Court. The District Court stated a case to the High Court. The President of the High Court found that the District Justice had erred in law and that the summons was valid and within time having regard to the Act of 1986 and directed the matter to be entered before the District Court for continuances. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue the Supreme Court had to decide was as to the time limit of six months under s. 10(4) of the Act of 1851 in its application to proceedings commenced under the Act of 1986. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that such time limit applied to the application under s. 1(4) of the Act of 1986 for the issue of a summons. The defendant however, argued that the time limit applied to the date upon which the summons was first returned before a District Judge and a complaint made by the prosecutor to him. In the judgment, of the Supreme Court, Finlay C.J. (with whom Henchy, Griffin, Hederman and McCarthy JJ., concurred) said as follows at p. 545:-

"With regard to the next major issue which arose, I am satisfied that the interpretation of s. 1, sub-s. 7(a) of the Act of 1986 must be that it applies the time limit provisions of s. 10, para. 4 of the Act of 1851, to proceedings commenced under the Act of 1986, subject to the variation that the time limit of six months from the date of the alleged

[1999] Murray v. McArdle (No. 2) 389
4 I.R.
Kelly J.
H.C.
offence to the date of the application for the issue of a summons is substituted for the time limit of six months from the date of the alleged offence to the date of the complaint to the District Justice.
Any other interpretation of s. 1, sub-s. 7(a) seems to me inconsistent with its terms. It was suggested that it could be read as a sub-section relating only to an application for a summons under the Act of 1986 which refers not to a summary offence but to an indictable offence. There is no warrant for such a restricted interpretation in a short statute which most clearly is intended to and does deal with the summary criminal jurisdiction of the District Court. Furthermore, such an interpretation ignores and gives no effect to the phrase 'with any necessary modifications' contained in the sub-section.

I am therefore satisfied that, where proceedings for a criminal offence in the District Court are instituted pursuant to s. 10 of the Act of 1851 by the making of a complaint to a District Justice, such complaint must be made within six months of the date of the alleged offence. Where, however, proceedings for a criminal offence in the District Court are instituted by the application for a summons in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Act of 1986 by one of the persons who by virtue of s. 1, sub-s. 4 is entitled to make the application, the application for the summons must be made within six months of the date of the alleged offence, and that there is no bar to the prosecution if the date upon which the summons is returned before a District Justice and the case first brought before him is more than six months from the date of the alleged offence."

osprey

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Courts No 3 Act 1986 makes the application for the summons the date of the complaint. This is an administrative procedure of applying for a summons.
THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

PROSECUTOR
AND

GABRIEL O'BRIEN CRANE HIRE LTD.

ACCUSED
"The word "complaint" contained in Section 52 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 refers to a complaint made to the District Court pursuant to the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 (as amended) both when the jurisdiction of the District Court is invoked by the making of a complaint to a person duly authorised to receive it and when it is invoked by the operation of the procedure set out in Section 1 of the Courts ( No.3) Act, 1986 ."

In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Nolan [1990] 2 I.R. 526, the defendant was summonsed to appear before the District Court pursuant to the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1986. The application for the summons pursuant to that Act was made and a summons was issued within six months of the date of the alleged offence, but the date of the court hearing did not occur until more than six months after the date of the alleged offence. The summons was struck out by the District Court. The District Court stated a case to the High Court. The President of the High Court found that the District Justice had erred in law and that the summons was valid and within time having regard to the Act of 1986 and directed the matter to be entered before the District Court for continuances. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue the Supreme Court had to decide was as to the time limit of six months under s. 10(4) of the Act of 1851 in its application to proceedings commenced under the Act of 1986. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that such time limit applied to the application under s. 1(4) of the Act of 1986 for the issue of a summons. The defendant however, argued that the time limit applied to the date upon which the summons was first returned before a District Judge and a complaint made by the prosecutor to him. In the judgment, of the Supreme Court, Finlay C.J. (with whom Henchy, Griffin, Hederman and McCarthy JJ., concurred) said as follows at p. 545:-

"With regard to the next major issue which arose, I am satisfied that the interpretation of s. 1, sub-s. 7(a) of the Act of 1986 must be that it applies the time limit provisions of s. 10, para. 4 of the Act of 1851, to proceedings commenced under the Act of 1986, subject to the variation that the time limit of six months from the date of the alleged

[1999] Murray v. McArdle (No. 2) 389
4 I.R.
Kelly J.
H.C.
offence to the date of the application for the issue of a summons is substituted for the time limit of six months from the date of the alleged offence to the date of the complaint to the District Justice.
Any other interpretation of s. 1, sub-s. 7(a) seems to me inconsistent with its terms. It was suggested that it could be read as a sub-section relating only to an application for a summons under the Act of 1986 which refers not to a summary offence but to an indictable offence. There is no warrant for such a restricted interpretation in a short statute which most clearly is intended to and does deal with the summary criminal jurisdiction of the District Court. Furthermore, such an interpretation ignores and gives no effect to the phrase 'with any necessary modifications' contained in the sub-section.

I am therefore satisfied that, where proceedings for a criminal offence in the District Court are instituted pursuant to s. 10 of the Act of 1851 by the making of a complaint to a District Justice, such complaint must be made within six months of the date of the alleged offence. Where, however, proceedings for a criminal offence in the District Court are instituted by the application for a summons in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Act of 1986 by one of the persons who by virtue of s. 1, sub-s. 4 is entitled to make the application, the application for the summons must be made within six months of the date of the alleged offence, and that there is no bar to the prosecution if the date upon which the summons is returned before a District Justice and the case first brought before him is more than six months from the date of the alleged offence."

Not meaning to cause any offence, because I appreciate the effort you've gone to, but could you put the above quote in layman's terms?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

osprey wrote: »

Not meaning to cause any offence, because I appreciate the effort you've gone to, but could you put the above quote in layman's terms?

Not meaning to cause you any offence but was it really necessary to 'quote' such a big post?

What the judgement says is what people here have been trying to tell you - as long as the Gardai make an application for the summons to be issued within 6 months, the requirement is satisfied. A backlog in that district court could mean that the case doesn't get listed until several months later so the summons might not be served until well after 6 months have elapsed from the date of the alleged offence.

osprey

coylemj wrote: »

Not meaning to cause you any offence but was it really necessary to 'quote' such a big post?

What the judgement says is what people here have been trying to tell you - as long as the Gardai make an application for the summons to be issued within 6 months, the requirement is satisfied. A backlog in that district court could mean that the case doesn't get listed until several months later so the summons might not be served until well after 6 months have elapsed from the date of the alleged offence.

No, it's mostly folks talking slightly off topic from the thread with their own experiences but nothing concrete, in all fairness one poster came back with a good response there and that actually makes things clear. We have no quarrel about offence here, it's the internet and it's infinite. We aren't wasting paper and I'm new enough to boards in light of posting.

4ensic15

osprey wrote: »

Not meaning to cause any offence, because I appreciate the effort you've gone to, but could you put the above quote in layman's terms?

You were quoting the Citizens Information and saying you were confused.
Once you quote an authority you forced me to quote a superior authority. That is how academic discussion works. Citizens Information try to put things in layman's language and the result is ... confusion!
This is a legal discussion not a teach lay people discussion. It had already been put in much simpler terms by me before you started with your Citizens Information You can't have it both ways!

Carawaystick

I presume if the gards waited 25 years to serve a summons, a judge would look less than kindly on it, despite no upper fixed limit?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.