The High Court has ruled that a District Court judge had no jurisdiction to strike out five tax offence charges after Mary Fitzgerald indicated she would plead guilty, where the governing legislation required penalties on conviction.
In a judgment delivered on 18 September 2020, Mr Justice Meenan said the District Judge was not entitled to strike out the charges. He granted the Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of the Revenue Commissioners) the relief sought to quash that order. The judge said he would hear the parties on further and consequential orders, with 14 days for written submissions on the electronically delivered judgment.
Fitzgerald had faced 19 District Court summonses alleging that she knowingly or wilfully produced incorrect documents in connection with income tax. At a hearing in Dublin on 20 March 2019, her solicitor said she would plead guilty. The prosecution indicated it would accept guilty pleas on five summonses and that the remaining summonses could be struck out.
The prosecution outlined the facts and the applicable penalties. In mitigation, Fitzgerald’s solicitor relied on an early guilty plea, €6,374.18 in full repayment to Revenue, financial stress, a history of serious mental illness, cancer, her employment and caring responsibilities, and the risk that a conviction would cost her job. The court was also told she had taken steps to prevent a recurrence.
The District Judge said fines would represent a significant sum for Fitzgerald, first indicated that a community service order should be imposed, and then referred to “restorative justice”. After it was submitted that restorative justice could not apply to offences of this kind, he stated that the facts had been proven and struck out all charges before him.
The High Court found that section 1078 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 set out a mandatory penalty scheme and disapplied section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. It also held that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017.
Mr Justice Meenan acknowledged that the mitigation formed a compelling case for leniency, but said it did not give the District Judge power to strike out the charges. The High Court’s ruling quashes the order challenged in the judicial review; the judgment did not itself state the further consequential orders, which were left for later submissions.