The High Court answered two questions in a case stated appeal concerning a conviction under the Sex Offenders Act 2001 for failing to notify An Garda Síochána of a change of home address. It ruled that the offence was not confined to a single date and that the District Court could convict without evidence establishing the exact date the address changed.
The appellant, David Radford, had been charged with failing to notify a change of address within the period alleged. At the District Court hearing, his father testified that from July 2013 Radford regularly stopped staying at the address previously notified to Gardaí, though he returned there periodically. The father said Radford had not stayed there since 18 July. The judgment records that emergency accommodation was provided from 19 July and more permanent accommodation from 1 August. The new address was formally notified on 23 September.
After the prosecution case, the defence argued there was no case to answer because the charge did not identify a specific date. The prosecution submitted that the offence began after seven days without notification and continued while the failure persisted. The District Judge amended the charge to allege that, on an unknown date between 1 July and 23 September 2013, Radford failed without reasonable excuse to notify the change. The judge then convicted him.
On appeal by way of case stated, the appellant argued that the offence was date-specific and that the amended period included days before the offence could have begun. The High Court rejected those arguments. It interpreted section 12(2) as providing that the offence begins after the relevant seven-day period and continues on each subsequent day while the failure continues. On the evidence, it said the offence could have continued through 22 September 2013.
The court said the precise date the continuing offence first began was not essential once the prosecution established that the required seven-day period had elapsed. It also noted that the appellant did not claim he had been prejudiced by the amended charge and had known the case he had to meet. The court therefore held that including part of a period during which the offence could not yet have been committed did not invalidate the charge.
The High Court answered “No” to whether the offence was date-specific and required an exact date in the charge sheet, and “Yes” to whether the District Court was correct in law to convict without evidence of the exact date the change occurred. The judgment does not record a separate order quashing or varying the conviction.