D.P.P. v. Joyce [2003] IEHC 166 (20 May 2003)

D.P.P. v. Joyce [2003] IEHC 166 (20 May 2003)

On the date of the summons, the offence charged was not deemed to be an offence to which Part III of the Act of 1927 applied, so there was no requirement for the summons to state that the licence must be produced. The legislative amendments removed the automatic application of Part III to such offences, and the requirement only arises if the Court exercises its discretion to endorse the licence after conviction.

Citation
[2003] IEHC 166
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Pat Joyce as nominee of Joyce's Supermarket Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Case Stated / High Court Determination of Questions of Law From District Court
Outcome
Questions of law answered in the negative; summons valid; accused's contention rejected.
Legal Topics
Intoxicating Liquor Offences, Endorsement of Licences, Summons Requirements
Criminal Law Licensing Law Intoxicating Liquor Offences Endorsement of Licences Summons Requirements

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Pat Joyce as nominee of Joyce's Supermarket Limited

Accused

Procedural Posture

Case Stated / High Court Determination of Questions of Law From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 14(1) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2000 repealed s. 32(1) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1927
  2. 2 Whether an offence under s. 31(2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 is an offence to which Part III of the Act of 1927 applies
  3. 3 Whether s. 32(1) of the Act of 1927 applies to a summons charging an offence under s. 31(2) of the Act of 1988

Ratio Decidendi

On the date of the summons, the offence charged was not deemed to be an offence to which Part III of the Act of 1927 applied, so there was no requirement for the summons to state that the licence must be produced. The legislative amendments removed the automatic application of Part III to such offences, and the requirement only arises if the Court exercises its discretion to endorse the licence after conviction.

Court Disposition

Questions of law answered in the negative; summons valid; accused's contention rejected.