The High Court has refused an application challenging a criminal damage conviction and a District Judge’s refusal to state a case for appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 16 April 2013, Mr Justice Hedigan rejected each ground raised by the applicant, Kenneth Cullen. The proceedings concerned a conviction in the District Court and the refusal of an appeal by way of case stated. The judgment does not set out the underlying background in detail, saying it was already contained in the pleadings and submissions.
The court found there was compelling evidence of damage to a sliding door. Garda Steers testified that he and a colleague had seen Cullen pulling at it, after finding it in good working order earlier that day. The door had come off its rail and was hanging loose. Cullen’s affidavit admitted kicking the door, while stating that it regularly slipped off its rails. The judge held that knocking the door off its rails amounted to damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1991, even though the Gardaí quickly put it back.
The judge also rejected arguments concerning statutory presumptions about ownership and authority to damage property. Under section 7(2)(a), the court said, property is presumed to belong to another unless the contrary is shown. Naming a person as owner on the charge sheet, without proving that person’s ownership, did not displace the presumption. The judgment noted that Cullen said he had rented the premises with his partner, but found this insufficient in light of evidence that he had been removed by Gardaí earlier that day, knew he was no longer welcome, and gave Gardaí a different address.
The court likewise held that the rental claim did not rebut the presumption that there was no authority to damage the property. It also rejected the argument that Gardaí had to prove damage of exactly €20, the amount specified on the charge sheet. The judge said the offence was constituted by damage to another’s property, whether great or small.
The District Judge had certified the refusal to state a case on the basis that the application was frivolous. Considering the grounds itself, the High Court found they had no merit and refused the requested order under section 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857. The judgment records that refusal; it does not describe a separate appeal hearing on the conviction.