Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Carter [2014] IEHC 179 (21 March 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Carter [2014] IEHC 179 (21 March 2014)

Section 99(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (as amended) imposes a mandatory requirement that a defendant be remanded to the next sitting of the court, and failure to comply with this requirement deprives the court of jurisdiction to deal with the matter under section 99(10). Acquiescence or lack of objection by the defendant cannot cure the jurisdictional defect.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 179
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Madden and Garda Hynes); Defendant: Jeffrey Carter
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Case Stated (consultative) From District Court to High Court / Determination of Statutory Interpretation and Jurisdictional Questions
Outcome
Questions answered: (1) Yes, (2) Yes, (3) Does not arise, (4) No. District Court had no jurisdiction due to non-compliance with statutory remand requirement.
Legal Topics
Suspended Sentences, Jurisdiction, Remand Procedure, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Suspended Sentences Jurisdiction Remand Procedure 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Madden and Garda Hynes)

Prosecutor

Jeffrey Carter

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (consultative) From District Court to High Court / Determination of Statutory Interpretation and Jurisdictional Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 99(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (as amended) requires remand to the next sitting of the court as a mandatory or directory provision
  2. 2 Whether failure to comply with the 'next sitting' requirement deprives the court of jurisdiction under section 99(10)
  3. 3 Whether a defendant can waive or consent to a longer remand than the statutory requirement

Ratio Decidendi

Section 99(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (as amended) imposes a mandatory requirement that a defendant be remanded to the next sitting of the court, and failure to comply with this requirement deprives the court of jurisdiction to deal with the matter under section 99(10). Acquiescence or lack of objection by the defendant cannot cure the jurisdictional defect.

Court Disposition

Questions answered: (1) Yes, (2) Yes, (3) Does not arise, (4) No. District Court had no jurisdiction due to non-compliance with statutory remand requirement.

Orders

  • Declaration that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter under section 99(10) due to failure to remand to the next sitting as required by section 99(9).