2nd summons?

tupenny

Hi all. Looking for some words of wisdom here please!
Recently received a summons for the same incident which happened in 2013.. the case was thrown out in court and as far as I knew that was that. Til now, summons again for same thing! Does this happen? Could it be a clerical error or is there the possibility I'll have to go through it all again?
Thanks in advance for any replies, really appreciated

Victor

tupenny wrote: »

the case was thrown out in court

It may depend on the exact mechanism to do this.

If it's a serious matter, get a solicitor. We can't give legal advice, especially seeing as I'm an albatross.

GM228

The case was "thrown out" you say, but was it dismissed or struck out?

A dismissed case can't be revisited, a struck out case can and often is subject to certain conditions.

Pat Mustard

tupenny wrote: »

Does this happen?

Yes

NUTLEY BOY

Not legal advice just a general observation on the principle.

If the second summons was issued within the relevant time period for a summary offence that would probably be in order. That is actually the first technical point to be clarified.

Generally, the relevant time limit is six months for summary offences e.g. the District Court. AFAIK, the summons does not have to be served within six months from the date of the alleged incident. As long as the Gardaí make the relevant application to the office that generates the summons within six months of the alleged incident that should be all that is required. They can then serve the summons.

I am mystified as to how a 2013 incident seems to have produced a 2017 summons ?/ However, there may be other background reasons that validate the exercise. As you are in to legal technicalities at this stage it would be best to instruct a solicitor to advise and sort it out.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If the second summons was issued within the relevant time period for a summary offence that would probably be in order. That is actually the first technical point to be clarified.

Generally, the relevant time limit is six months for summary offences e.g. the District Court. AFAIK, the summons does not have to be served within six months from the date of the alleged incident. As long as the Gardaí make the relevant application to the office that generates the summons within six months of the alleged incident that should be all that is required. They can then serve the summons.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I am mystified as to how a 2013 incident seems to have produced a 2017 summons?

Only the first summons must be applied for (known as making the complaint) within the relevant time period of 6 months. It does not need to be actually issued or served within 6 months. A subsequent summons is issued based on the first summons complaint date meaning subsequent summons can be requested beyond the 6 month date. This applies to a summons under the Courts (No.3) Act 1986 only.

A summons issued under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 must be applied for, issued, served and more importantly first come before the court within 6 months, this is the reason why the majority of Gardaí do not use the Petty Sessions Act anymore.

lifeandtimes

GM228 wrote: »

Only the first summons must be applied for (known as making the complaint) within the relevant time period of 6 months. It does not need to be actually issued or served within 6 months. A subsequent summons is issued based on the first summons complaint date meaning subsequent summons can be requested beyond the 6 month date. This applies to a summons under the Courts (No.3) Act 1986 only.

A summons issued under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 must be applied for, issued, served and more importantly first come before the court within 6 months, this is the reason why the majority of Gardaí do not use the Petty Sessions Act anymore.

Yes but if an original summons was issued and the case was heard with an outcome i.e. not adjourned, then why would another summons be issued 4 years later for someone to come back and contest or defend themselves? I can't think of any case that requires a defendant to be "resummoned" to reappear in court 4 years later for the same matter?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Yes but if an original summons was issued and the case was heard with an outcome i.e. not adjourned, then why would another summons be issued 4 years later for someone to come back and contest or defend themselves? I can't think of any case that requires a defendant to be "resummoned" to reappear in court 4 years later for the same matter?

Most likely the case was struck out rather than dismissed. A dismissal is an outcome, a strike out isn't as it isn't a decision/judgement and so the doctrine of res judicata does not apply.

It would help if we knew more from the OP.

lifeandtimes

GM228 wrote: »

Most likely the case was struck out rather than dismissed. A dismissal is an outcome, a strike out isn't as it isn't a decision/judgement and so the doctrine of res judicata does not apply.

It would help if we knew more from the OP.

I getcha now but srill quite strange.

If the offense was serious enough to warrant another sitting of court you'd think the offender would be arrested and not summoned to come back. Possible case regarding irregular finances maybe??

hullaballoo

Many offences that could be regarded as "serious" are not arrestable offences so the issuance of a second summons is the only option for prosecutors.

Proceedings in criminal matters as above provide for the initial complaint to be made within 6 months of the offence alleged but there is some doubt as a result (aside from offences prosecuted under the Petty Sessions Act) in relation to the time allowed for service and more generally the prosecution of such cases.

On the one hand, there is the lack of willingness for legislators to delimit the time within which prosecutions can be brought but there is very much a competing lack of willingness for the courts to extend the time within which prosecutions can be brought ad infinitum.

tupenny

Appreciate all the replies, thanks!
I was a motor offense.
I have forwarded summons to my solicitor (same 1 who I had in 2013).
I will know more later today.
I just thought it was a bit bizarre 4 years later

Little CuChulainn

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Yes but if an original summons was issued and the case was heard with an outcome i.e. not adjourned, then why would another summons be issued 4 years later for someone to come back and contest or defend themselves? I can't think of any case that requires a defendant to be "resummoned" to reappear in court 4 years later for the same matter?

My best guess would be one of the relevant parties was out of the country or unable to be located.