DPP v Hegarty [2011] IESC 32 (28 July 2011)

DPP v Hegarty [2011] IESC 32 (28 July 2011)

Section 3(4) of the Competition (Amendment) Act 1996 does not require that the undertaking be prosecuted or convicted of a s. 2 offence before an individual can be convicted under s. 3(4); it is sufficient that the jury finds, on the evidence, that the undertaking committed the offence. The accused cannot rely on the rights of the company to challenge the proceedings against himself.

Citation
[2011] IESC 32
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Pat Hegarty
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Supreme Court Consultative Opinion on Case Stated From Circuit Criminal Court
Outcome
Questions answered: (a) Yes; (b) No.
Legal Topics
Corporate Criminal Liability, Offences by Company Officers, Interpretation of Statutory Offences, Fair Trial Rights, Jus Tertii, Competition Offences
Criminal Law Competition Law Constitutional Law Corporate Criminal Liability Offences by Company Officers Interpretation of Statutory Offences Fair Trial Rights Jus Tertii +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 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Pat Hegarty

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Supreme Court Consultative Opinion on Case Stated From Circuit Criminal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a jury can find that an undertaking has committed an offence under s. 2 of the Competition (Amendment) Act 1996 where the undertaking has not been prosecuted for that offence
  2. 2 Whether a conviction of the undertaking is a necessary precondition to convicting an individual under s. 3(4) of the 1996 Act

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3(4) of the Competition (Amendment) Act 1996 does not require that the undertaking be prosecuted or convicted of a s. 2 offence before an individual can be convicted under s. 3(4); it is sufficient that the jury finds, on the evidence, that the undertaking committed the offence. The accused cannot rely on the rights of the company to challenge the proceedings against himself.

Court Disposition

Questions answered: (a) Yes; (b) No.

Orders

  • The Supreme Court answered question (a) in the affirmative: a jury can find that the undertaking committed an offence even if it has not been prosecuted.
  • The Supreme Court answered question (b) in the negative: a conviction of the undertaking is not a necessary precondition to convicting the individual.