Fitzgerald v. D.P.P. & Anor [2003] IESC 46 (25 July 2003)

Fitzgerald v. D.P.P. & Anor [2003] IESC 46 (25 July 2003)

The proviso to s.4 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, which obliges a District Judge to state a case when requested by the Attorney General or DPP, is not inconsistent with the Constitution. It does not require the court to resolve a justiciable controversy in a particular manner or interfere with the judicial determination of guilt or innocence. The statutory scheme merely facilitates an appeal on a point of law and is a legitimate legislative provision. The District Judge must, however, be satisfied that a point of law arises before stating a case.

Citation
[2003] IESC 46
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Brian Fitzgerald; Respondent/appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent/appellant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside. Applicant's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Constitutionality of Legislation, Case Stated Procedure, Judicial Independence, Summary Jurisdiction, Double Jeopardy
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Constitutionality of Legislation Case Stated Procedure Judicial Independence Summary Jurisdiction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Fitzgerald

Applicant/respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/appellant

Attorney General

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proviso to s.4 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, which obliges a District Judge to state a case when requested by the Attorney General or DPP, is inconsistent with the Constitution and not carried forward by Article 50 of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge must first satisfy himself that a point of law arises before stating a case under s.2 of the 1857 Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso to s.4 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, which obliges a District Judge to state a case when requested by the Attorney General or DPP, is not inconsistent with the Constitution. It does not require the court to resolve a justiciable controversy in a particular manner or interfere with the judicial determination of guilt or innocence. The statutory scheme merely facilitates an appeal on a point of law and is a legitimate legislative provision. The District Judge must, however, be satisfied that a point of law arises before stating a case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside. Applicant's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court declaring the proviso to s.4 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 inconsistent with the Constitution is set aside.
  • Order dismissing the applicant's claim substituted.