The District Court has ruled that a criminal case against Brendan Talbot can proceed after an original charge sheet was struck out and the prosecution later sought a summons based on the same complaint.
Judge Brian O’Shea delivered the determination at Dublin District Court on 26 April 2018. The issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the charge when the summons application came more than six months after the alleged offence.
The parties agreed that evidence of Talbot’s arrest, charge and caution had been given before a District Court judge within six months of the alleged offence. The charge sheet was later struck out for procedural reasons, more than six months after the alleged offence. The prosecution then applied for a summons under the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986, relying on the original complaint. The offence particulars were the same in both procedures.
Talbot argued that striking out the charge sheet also struck out the complaint, leaving no basis for a summons applied for outside the statutory period. He also argued that the 1986 Act procedure provides for starting proceedings, not re-entering them. The prosecutor submitted that the original complaint had been made in time and that the charge sheet and summons procedures could be used interchangeably.
Judge O’Shea distinguished the process used to bring an accused to court from the complaint that gives the court jurisdiction. He found the charge sheet procedure did not itself amount to a complaint; jurisdiction arose when the court received evidence of arrest, charge and caution. In this case, that had happened within the statutory period.
The judge held that striking out the charge sheet did not withdraw or dismiss the complaint. He said a complaint could be nullified by withdrawal or dismissal, and neither had occurred here. The later summons was therefore based on the timely complaint, even though the summons application itself came after six months.
The court rejected Talbot’s preliminary challenge, determined that he was properly before it and that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. It directed that the case proceed in the usual manner. The determination addressed jurisdiction and did not decide the underlying criminal charge.