The Supreme Court has upheld the right of local authorities to "prosecute summarily" indictable offences under the Planning Acts.
By a four-to-one majority yesterday, the court reversed a High Court finding quashing the conviction by the District Court of two parties for planning offences on the ground that Fingal County Council could not prosecute summarily an indictable offence under Section 24 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963. This section contains the basic statutory obligation to obtain planning permission for development.
Delivering the decision, Mr Justice Geoghegan said: "It would be strange if the Oireachtas intended that although the planning authority would be the normal prosecuting authority for the summary offences, it could not deal with minor incidents or indictable offences clearly thought fit to be tried summarily."
The court was delivering its reserved judgment on an appeal by Fingal County Council concerning the erection of an unauthorised advertising hoarding.
The prosecution was against Mr Patrick Halligan, Co Dublin, and TDI Metro Ltd, Dublin, respectively owner and occupier of the lands on which the sign was erected. Mr Halligan and TDI Metro were convicted an Delap at the District Court on February 26th, 1998.
Mr Halligan and TDI argued that the council was not legally permitted to take out a summons for an indictable offence with a view to it being tried "summarily". This would mean that, where there was any contravention of Section 24, the prosecution must be brought by the DPP or a "common informer".
Mr Justice Geoghegan said the Act provided that "an offence under this Act may be prosecuted summarily by the planning authority". The issue was the meaning to be assigned to the words "prosecuted summarily".
In his view, there was no reason to give the expression "prosecuted summarily" a narrow meaning, which would confine it to prosecutions for summary offences.
