Gormley -v- D.J. Smyth & anor [2010] IESC 5 (28 January 2010)

Gormley -v- D.J. Smyth & anor [2010] IESC 5 (28 January 2010)

The District Court judge acted properly in sending the appellant forward for trial on indictment once it was clarified that the DPP had never consented to summary trial; section 4A of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 required the judge to do so, and any procedural error regarding the DPP's consent did not vitiate the proceedings.

Citation
[2010] IESC 5
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Jonathan Gormley; Respondent: District Judge Bryan Smyth; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Hybrid Offences, Jurisdiction of District Court, Summary Vs Indictable Offences, Powers of Director of Public Prosecutions, Procedural Errors
Criminal Law Judicial Review Criminal Procedure Hybrid Offences Jurisdiction of District Court Summary Vs Indictable Offences Powers of Director of Public Prosecutions Procedural Errors

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Gormley

Applicant/appellant

District Judge Bryan Smyth

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court judge had jurisdiction to send the appellant forward for trial on indictment after purported summary proceedings had commenced based on an error regarding DPP consent
  2. 2 Whether the absence of express statutory power prevented the District Court from sending the accused forward for trial on indictment in hybrid offence cases
  3. 3 Whether procedural errors regarding DPP's consent or direction vitiated the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court judge acted properly in sending the appellant forward for trial on indictment once it was clarified that the DPP had never consented to summary trial; section 4A of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 required the judge to do so, and any procedural error regarding the DPP's consent did not vitiate the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the High Court refusing judicial review affirmed