Hogan -v- District Judge Lindsay & anor [2016] IEHC 273 (12 May 2016)

Hogan -v- District Judge Lindsay & anor [2016] IEHC 273 (12 May 2016)

The omission of the word 'property' from the statement of charges did not render the charge an offence unknown to law, as the physical nature of the property (BMW car key) was specified and the statutory provision was cited. There was no uncertainty as to the nature of the charge, and the applicant was not prejudiced. The return for trial was valid and the Circuit Court had jurisdiction.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 273
Parties
Applicant: Paul Hogan; First Respondent: District Judge John Lindsay; Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Certiorari
Outcome
Relief refused
Legal Topics
Defective Charge Sheet, Jurisdiction of Circuit Court, Return for Trial, Particularisation of Criminal Charges
Criminal Law Judicial Review Defective Charge Sheet Jurisdiction of Circuit Court Return for Trial Particularisation of Criminal Charges

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Hogan

Applicant

District Judge John Lindsay

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Certiorari

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission of the word 'property' from the statement of charges in the book of evidence renders the return for trial invalid
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was sent forward for trial on an offence unknown to law
  3. 3 Whether the Circuit Court has jurisdiction in the absence of a properly particularised charge

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of the word 'property' from the statement of charges did not render the charge an offence unknown to law, as the physical nature of the property (BMW car key) was specified and the statutory provision was cited. There was no uncertainty as to the nature of the charge, and the applicant was not prejudiced. The return for trial was valid and the Circuit Court had jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Relief refused

Orders

  • Application for certiorari refused
  • Return for trial upheld