The High Court has ruled that a Garda accused in a private prosecution of knowingly making false reports had no right to insist that the charges be tried before a judge and jury.
The case arose after Troy Cremin, acting as a private prosecutor or “common informer”, obtained six summonses against Garda Michael Dineen on 16 June 2008. Five alleged that Garda Dineen knowingly made a false report tending to show that Mr Cremin had committed an offence on 12 April 2007. A sixth alleged that a false report had been made under oath.
All six charges were brought under section 12 of the Criminal Law Act 1976. The provision allows conviction either summarily in the District Court or on indictment in a higher court.
When the case came before the District Court in July 2008, Garda Dineen’s solicitor argued that the allegations amounted to obstruction of the administration of justice and were therefore scheduled offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1951. On that basis, it was argued that he could elect trial on indictment and should receive advance disclosure of the evidence before making that choice.
The District Judge accepted that argument and stated two questions of law for the High Court.
Mr Justice Hedigan disagreed. He held that an offence under section 12 was a “hybrid offence”. In practical terms, that means the prosecutor decides whether to proceed summarily or on indictment. Where summary trial is chosen, the accused has no independent right to demand a jury trial, although the District Judge must still consider whether the alleged offence is minor enough to be tried summarily.
The court also rejected an automatic entitlement to advance disclosure. It noted that there were no witness statements in this case and that the prosecutor had undertaken to provide Garda Dineen with a précis of the evidence before trial.
The High Court therefore answered both questions posed by the District Court in the negative.