Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Johnston & anor [2014] IEHC 104 (05 February 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Johnston & anor [2014] IEHC 104 (05 February 2014)

It is not necessary for a charge sheet to state the precise corporate name as per the certificate of incorporation, provided the name used gives reasonable information as to the identity of the owner and is not misleading. Evidence establishing the link between the informal and formal names, and proof of ownership, suffices for the purposes of the theft charge.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 104
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Susan Mulcahy); Accused: Sarah Johnston; Accused: Dean Gibbons
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Case Stated From District Court (criminal) / High Court Judgment on Case Stated
Outcome
Questions answered in favour of the prosecution; prosecution not fatally flawed by use of informal name or discrepancy in ownership evidence.
Legal Topics
Theft, Charge Sheet Requirements, Corporate Ownership, Proof of Ownership, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Theft Charge Sheet Requirements Corporate Ownership Proof of Ownership Criminal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Susan Mulcahy)

Prosecutor

Sarah Johnston

Accused

Dean Gibbons

Accused

Procedural Posture

Case Stated From District Court (criminal) / High Court Judgment on Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge sheet must state the precise corporate name as per the certificate of incorporation
  2. 2 Whether a discrepancy between the owner named in the charge sheet and the owner giving evidence is fatal to the prosecution
  3. 3 Whether evidence of ownership by a different legal entity than named in the charge sheet is fatal to the prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

It is not necessary for a charge sheet to state the precise corporate name as per the certificate of incorporation, provided the name used gives reasonable information as to the identity of the owner and is not misleading. Evidence establishing the link between the informal and formal names, and proof of ownership, suffices for the purposes of the theft charge.

Court Disposition

Questions answered in favour of the prosecution; prosecution not fatally flawed by use of informal name or discrepancy in ownership evidence.

Orders

  • It is not necessary that the charge sheet should contain precisely the same name as that set out in the certificate of incorporation, provided the name used gives reasonable information of the owner and is not misleading.
  • No obligation to strike out proceedings where the charge sheet provides reasonable information as to the owner, even if the owner giving evidence differs from that named in the charge sheet.