A prosecution bid to have two €15,000 fines imposed on Gibson Brothers (Ireland) Limited reviewed as unduly lenient has failed in the Court of Appeal because the required notice was not properly served on the company.
The company had pleaded guilty in Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court to two workplace safety offences arising under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and construction regulations. On 19 October 2011, it was fined €15,000 on each count and given two months to pay.
The Director of Public Prosecutions sought a sentence review under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, arguing that the fines were unduly lenient and represented a departure from the norm.
Gibson Brothers raised a preliminary objection before the merits of that claim were considered. The company argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with the statutory requirements governing notice to a convicted corporate body.
The notice had been delivered on the 28th day after sentence to the offices of the company's solicitors. A legal secretary accepted it on behalf of the firm. However, the relevant legislation required notice to a company to be delivered or sent by registered post to its secretary or another officer at its registered or principal office.
The DPP accepted that this specific form of service had not occurred but argued that the company's solicitors had accepted service and that the company should therefore be prevented from denying proper notification.
Mr Justice Edwards, delivering the court's ex tempore judgment, rejected that argument. The court said there would have to be exceptionally clear evidence of waiver or acquiescence before express statutory service requirements could potentially be displaced. Acceptance by a legal secretary did not meet that threshold.
The court stressed that an undue-leniency review is an exceptional statutory jurisdiction with potentially serious consequences for a convicted person or company. The statutory safeguards therefore could not lightly be disregarded.
The preliminary objection was upheld, so the court did not determine whether the original fines were unduly lenient.