The High Court has ruled that breach of the peace contrary to common law is an offence known to Irish law and may be prosecuted in the District Court. Any penalty following conviction must remain within that court’s sentencing limits.
Mr Justice Roderick Murphy gave the ruling on 17 February 2006 after Judge Catherine Murphy, sitting in the Dublin Metropolitan District, referred questions of law in a case stated. The High Court answered both questions posed: whether the common-law offence was known to law, and whether it could be prosecuted in the District Court and what penalty was available.
The case arose from a charge against Paul Thorpe concerning an alleged incident on 20 February 2004 at 36 Clonshaugh Glen, Priorswood, Dublin. The charge alleged that he used threatening and abusive language, became aggressive when asked to leave and refused to return a key, causing a breach of the peace. Those allegations were the background to the legal questions; the High Court’s judgment addressed the law, not the truth of the charge.
Thorpe’s counsel argued that breach of the peace was a power or ground for arrest, not itself an offence, and that Irish law specified no penalty for it. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that common-law breach of the peace was an offence and could be tried summarily, with sentencing governed by the District Court’s limits.
Mr Justice Murphy concluded that Irish authority, particularly the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision in A.G. v. Cunningham, supported the existence of a common-law offence. He also noted that breach of the peace could arise on private premises and had not been abolished by the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994.
The judgment distinguished serious breaches of the peace that may constitute offences from conduct dealt with preventively, which may not be an offence and may not attract a penalty. It said both categories were subject to a power of arrest, while acknowledging that the law did not prescribe the categories or clearly draw the line between them.
The High Court did not determine whether Thorpe committed the alleged conduct or impose a penalty. It answered the legal questions referred by the District Court: the common-law offence is known to law, and it may be prosecuted in the District Court, where any penalty on conviction is for that court to determine within its sentencing limits.