Quigley v Director Of Public Prosecutions

The case stated was prepared by the legal advisers to the appellant but in breach of Order 32 rule 5(4) it was never submitted in draft form to the PSNI or PPS for approval. The senior solicitor of the PPS, who is responsible for all appeals by way of case stated from the magistrates' courts and county courts swore an affidavit that she was unaware of the appeal until a short time before the call-over held in the Court of Appeal on 16 December 2005. It was only then that she obtained a copy of the settled case stated.

It is possible that the settled case stated was sent to the PPS as the solicitors for the appellant claim but on the evidence it is unlikely that it was received. Documents of this kind should be sent by special delivery. In any event neither the PSNI nor the PPS was able to make any contribution to the preparation of the case stated.

It was asserted on behalf of the appellant that counsel instructed by the PPS was aware of the application to state the case and the belief was expressed that he was given a copy of the judge's draft statement in advance of her final draft and statement of the case. The respondent, therefore, had adequate opportunity to make representations to the judge as to the terms of the statement of the case, it was submitted.

We are satisfied that the assertion and statement of belief were incorrect. Counsel for the PPS could not have known what points the appellant wished to argue before the Court of Appeal. At no time was a copy of the judge's draft given to counsel for the respondent.

It was contended that Article 61 must be interpreted so as to enable the court to treat the service of the copy of the requisition as directory and not mandatory and the time-limit waived where there is no prejudice to the respondent. Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission v McGillion [2002] NI 86 and Wallace v Quinn were cited. But no attempt was made that we could discern to distinguish the latter case from this case.