The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by Colm Ahearn and John Joyce, who sought to quash District Court convictions and committal warrants over charges of getting into stationary vehicles.
The appeals followed a High Court decision refusing their applications for certiorari. The Court of Appeal agreed that the applications should be dismissed, but differed from the High Court judge’s view that the charges and conviction orders contained drafting errors. It held that the charges and resulting orders were not defective under the modern legal test.
The cases concerned convictions under section 113 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The appellants argued that the charge sheets, conviction orders and warrants were invalid because they did not expressly state that the vehicle entries were made “without lawful authority or reasonable cause”. They said that omission meant the instruments contained an error on their face.
The court said the charge in each case identified getting into a mechanically propelled vehicle and cited section 113. That section makes the absence of lawful authority or reasonable cause an element of the relevant offences. The court concluded that the statutory reference and description gave the accused and their legal advisers clear information about the offences alleged. Both men had legal representation and pleaded guilty on legal advice, the judgment said.
Ahearn’s case arose from a September 2010 incident involving a vehicle at Aspen Park, Kinsealy. He pleaded guilty to the section 113 charge and a criminal damage charge; a separate theft-related charge was struck out. He later appealed the criminal damage matter, but not the section 113 conviction. A committal warrant issued after a fine remained unpaid. The Court of Appeal’s decision addressed his challenge to the section 113 conviction order and warrant.
Joyce’s case arose from an October 2011 incident at Celluplast Limited in Baldoyle Industrial Estate. He pleaded guilty to two section 113 charges, while a criminal damage charge was struck out. A two-month prison sentence was imposed on one charge, with the other taken into account. The judgment said the sentence had been served in full. Joyce challenged the conviction order and committal warrant.
The court applied the modern approach to whether a conviction order sets out the offence and material facts clearly enough to identify the conduct, date and place, and to prevent a person being charged again for the same offence. It found the charges and orders met that standard. It dismissed both appeals.