The Supreme Court allowed the Registrar of Companies’ appeal and ordered two prosecutions against System Partners Limited to return to the District Court for trial. It ruled that increased fees paid for late annual returns did not amount to criminal punishment and therefore did not engage the principle of double jeopardy.
The company had paid €379 and €1,200 in increased filing fees for returns relating to the years ending 31 December 2001 and 31 December 2000, respectively. It was also charged with offences concerning late returns in those two years under the Companies Act 1963, as amended.
District Judge Anderson struck out the charges on double jeopardy grounds. On the Registrar’s application for judicial review, the High Court upheld that decision and refused to quash it. The Registrar appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a judgment delivered on 16 December 2004, Mr Justice Geoghegan said the increased charges were fees designed to deter late filing. Their administrative nature meant that they were not criminal penalties, even though they could be described as penalties in a broader, non-punitive sense. Double jeopardy did not apply between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding; for the company’s argument to succeed, a criminal punishment would already have had to be imposed.
The court said the statutory prosecution was criminal in nature, but found no analogy between that process and the payment of increased filing fees. It noted that the fees might be argued to be excessive or unfair, but said any remedy for that alleged unfairness lay elsewhere.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and substituted an order of certiorari quashing the District Court’s decision to strike out the charges. It remitted the prosecutions to the District Court for trial. The judgment did not decide whether the company was guilty. It said that, if there were a conviction, payment of the increased fees could be considered in mitigation of penalty.