The Supreme Court has upheld a District Court judge’s decision to stop hearing assault causing harm and false imprisonment charges against Aidan Reade after concluding that the alleged offences were non-minor and outside the District Court’s jurisdiction. It also declared that the judge had no power to adjourn the matter for service of a book of evidence.
The ruling, delivered by Macken J on 31 July 2009, arose from charges under sections 3 and 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The Director of Public Prosecutions had directed that the charges be dealt with summarily. The District Court initially considered it had jurisdiction, but during the complainant’s evidence on 1 December 2005, the judge reconsidered and stopped the hearing, directing that a book of evidence be served for a jury trial at Galway Circuit Court.
Reade sought judicial review, asking the court to quash the decision and require the District Court judge to hear the charges. The High Court refused relief on 26 February 2008. On appeal, Reade argued that the DPP’s choice to prosecute summarily prevented the District Court judge from declining jurisdiction. He also argued that, even if the judge could decline jurisdiction, the judge could not send the case forward for trial on indictment or order service of a book of evidence.
The Supreme Court held that the DPP’s choice of prosecution route was an administrative decision and did not conclusively determine whether the alleged offences were minor. The District Court’s jurisdiction was limited to minor offences. If evidence disclosed during a hearing showed that an offence was non-minor, the judge was obliged to stop the summary trial and decline jurisdiction. The Court also rejected the appeal’s fair-procedures argument, finding that stopping a hearing in those circumstances ensured the accused would be tried according to law.
However, the Court found no statutory power allowing a District Court judge to send forward a non-minor hybrid offence or adjourn it for service of a book of evidence. It held that the proper consequence was to strike out the proceedings. That did not prevent the DPP from starting fresh proceedings on an indictable basis.
The Court affirmed the High Court order refusing to quash the District Court judge’s decision to decline jurisdiction and granted a declaration that the judge had no power to adjourn the matter for service of a book of evidence. The judgment does not state that Reade was convicted or acquitted.