The Court of Appeal has ruled that a book of evidence may be served on an accused’s solicitor before the accused is sent forward for trial, and set out the methods of service permitted under the District Court Rules.
The ruling came in a consultative case stated from Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. The Director of Public Prosecutions asked whether service on a solicitor met the requirements of sections 4A and 4B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, and, if so, what manner of service was required.
The case arose after Nikita Brogan’s matter was listed in Dublin Metropolitan District Court in January 2021. She was due to appear by video link from the Dóchas Centre, where a lockdown meant she might not be produced in court the following week. Her solicitor, Mr McGarry, consulted her and told the District Court he had no objection to accepting service on her behalf. Sergeant Paul Keane then handed him the book of evidence.
The prosecution argued that the legislation, read as a whole, permitted service on a solicitor and that requiring personal service before an accused could be sent forward would undermine provisions expressly allowing service on a solicitor. The defence assisted the court on the same interpretation and said the solicitor would likely be present to take service.
Delivering the judgment on 3 June 2021, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said section 4A(5) makes service of the documents a precondition to sending an accused forward for trial. Read alongside section 4B, she concluded that service could be made on the accused or their solicitor.
On the second question, the court found that the book of evidence counts as a “notice” for the purposes of the Courts Act 1964, allowing the District Court Rules’ service provisions to apply. It answered that service may be effected under Order 41, rules 4, 11(1), 11(2)(a) or 11(2)(b): personally on the accused, or by the specified methods on the solicitor, including acceptance of service or delivery or leaving a copy at the solicitor’s office.
The court answered the two questions in the consultative case stated. The judgment did not determine Brogan’s guilt or the outcome of the underlying criminal charge.