The Supreme Court has dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal against an order quashing a District Court decision that sent Joseph Zambra forward for trial in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court without a preliminary examination.
In a judgment delivered on 27 June 2002, Mr Justice Hardiman said orders extending time to serve the Book of Evidence were steps taken “under” Part II of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967. The Court therefore affirmed the High Court order granting certiorari and quashing the committal order made on 31 October 2001.
Zambra was first brought before the District Court on 8 February 2001, charged with false imprisonment. On 17 July, he faced further charges, including unlawful killing and assault occasioning harm. The DPP’s representative said the prosecution was directed to proceed on indictment. The case was adjourned for service of the Book of Evidence, which was served on 23 October.
Part III of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 came into force on 1 October 2001, while the case was adjourned. The prosecution’s position was that service of the Book of Evidence was the first step under Part II of the 1967 Act, and that it occurred after the 1999 provisions took effect. On that basis, it argued that a preliminary examination was no longer required.
The Court considered the transitional provision in section 23 of the 1999 Act. It said the District Court rules required the Book of Evidence to be served within 30 days of the accused’s first appearance, unless the court extended the time. Although the extension orders were not produced, their existence was common ground and the Court agreed they had to be assumed. It identified likely extensions in relation to the charges brought in July and evidence that time had also been extended for the original charge.
The Court concluded that the time extensions were made under a rule specifically connected to the statutory duty to serve the Book of Evidence. They were therefore steps taken in pursuance of Part II before the 1999 provisions commenced. That conclusion made it unnecessary to decide whether other actions in the case also counted as steps under the Act.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. It did not determine whether the other alleged steps independently engaged the transitional provision.