By Clara Finn
The High Court has refused an application by Daniel Sherry to quash an order sending him forward for trial in Dundalk on charges of burglary and criminal damage.
Sherry had been sent forward from the District Court on 13 May 2008. The charges, arising from an alleged incident at 82 Meadow Grove, Dundalk, on 28 June 2007, were set out on the first substantive page of the book of evidence served on him.
His judicial review challenge focused on the wording of the return-for-trial order. It stated that he was before the court “charged as set out on attached book of evidence” and ordered him forward on the “aforesaid offence(s)”. Sherry argued that the book was not physically attached to the copy of the order and that the wording failed to identify with sufficient certainty which offences were being sent forward.
He also pointed to witness statements in the book of evidence which, he argued, disclosed material capable of supporting other possible offences, including summary offences.
Mr Justice McMahon rejected those arguments. He held that the word “attached” was simply a reference to the existing book of evidence, which had already been served on Sherry, rather than a requirement that it be physically stapled or pinned to the order.
More importantly, the judge found there could have been no genuine uncertainty about the charges. The only charges actually set out in the book were one count of burglary and one count of criminal damage. Possible offences suggested by witness statements were not themselves charges and could not reasonably be understood as falling within the return-for-trial order.
The court distinguished earlier cases where schedules or particulars identifying charges had been missing or defective.
The High Court therefore refused certiorari. The judgment did not determine whether Sherry was guilty of either alleged offence; it dealt only with the validity and clarity of the order sending him forward for trial.