The failure to record, on the face of the warrant, the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed by way of summary trial renders the warrant bad

The High Court has ruled that the failure to record, on the face of the warrant, the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed by way of summary trial (i.e. judge alone) is a "fatal flaw", rendering the warrant bad. 

A minor convicted of possession of controlled drugs for unlawful sale or supply challenged the validity of his detention under Article 40 of the Constitution on the basis that the warrant, on foot of which the minor was committed to prison, fails to record the decision of the Director that the matter be tried summarily.

Mr. Justice Seamus Noonan, in his written judgment, stated that it is not in dispute that an accused is brought before the District Court on foot of a charge sheet. Or that the accused cannot know the form of trial (i.e. summary or indictable) until the Director's decision has been conveyed to a District Court judge. It is "settled law" that the Director alone decides the venue, subject to the District Court judge determining that the offence is minor. Indeed, the trial cannot proceed until the Director invokes the relevant jurisdiction.

It seems to me beyond argument that if the Director has determined that the accused be tried by jury, the District Judge cannot embark on a summary trial and, were he or she to do so, any resultant order would be quashed for the asking. That can be the only reason that in such circumstances the District Judge has no jurisdiction to try the accused. I cannot see how any other construction is possible. It must follow as a matter of logic that if the Director has made no decision one way or the other equally the District Judge has no jurisdiction.

Paraphrasing precedent, Mr. Justice Noonan described the decision of the Director as an "essential ingredient to the exercise of that jurisdiction". In the absence of such a decision by the Director there is simply no jurisdiction vested in the District Court.

Therefore Mr. Justice Noonan concluded that the failure to record, on the face of the warrant, the decision by the Director to proceed by way of summary trial renders the warrant bad. 

Charity cannot be used as a substitute for mandatory sanctions

The High Court has ruled that the court poor box cannot be used as an alternative to imposing penalty points and a fine in speeding cases.

Mr. Justice Hogan observed that despite the "obscure and uncertain origins" of the court poor box, its use in other cases is of such longstanding and widespread use, it must be considered part of common law - adopted under Article 50.1 of the Constitution.

However, Mr Justice Hogan ruled that the court poor box does not apply in penalty points cases.

A pensioner had challenged the refusal of Judge Conal Gibbons of the District Court to allow a contribution to be made to the court poor box after pleading guilty to speeding.

Counsel for the pensioner pointed out Judge Gibbons' allowance of the use of the court poor box in another speeding case. However, Judge Gibbons claimed that he had since become aware of a High Court judgment (see comment below) precluding his use of the court poor box in speeding cases.

Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan noted that the dismissal of penalty points offences under the Probation Act was prohibited under section 55 of the Road Traffic Act 2010.

Mr. Justice Hogan ruled that the common law jurisdiction must be deemed to have been superseded with the commencement of the 2010 Act.

Mr. Justice Hogan ruled that the imposition of an "informal sanction" like a donation to the court poor box would be an indirect circumvention of the 2010 Act.

Moreover, Mr. Justice Hogan observed the difference between existing case law in which the court poor box was used in cases of sexual assault was, the legislator provided for mandatory sanctions for particular road traffic offences.

However, the District Court still has jurisdiction in sexual assault cases because mandatory sanctions were not provided for.

Comment:  D.P.P v Maughan [2003] IEHC 117 (3rd Nov. 2003)

The notice party, Colm McNerney pleaded guilty to a charge of drink driving before the District Court. However, McNerney gave evidence that at the time of the offence he was driving to the hospital to be with his seriously ill father, who died weeks later.

After initially adjourning, Judge Maughan indicated that the issue would be struck out if McNerney paid €200 to Victim Support. In ruling, Mr. Justice Ó Caoimh held that:

It is not in dispute that if this was the intention of [Judge Maughan] at the time he did not have jurisdiction to strike out the charges in question as the same do not permit the application of the Probation Act 1907.

In concluding, Mr. Justice Ó Caoimh expressed that he was:

…satisfied that the order made by [Judge Maughan] was made in excess of jurisdiction as he was obliged at the time to determine the case before him and to proceed in accordance with law to enter a conviction and to impose a penalty as required by law.

While the judgment did not expressly decide that the poor box could not be used, in this case for drink driving, due to mandatory sanctions, this appears to be an inescapable conclusion.