Bird v Judge Brady and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice John Hedigan
• Judgment Date: 11 June 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 180
• Docket Number: No. 1369 J.R./2007
• Court: High Court
• Date: 11 June 2008

Bird v Judge Brady & Ors

BETWEEN

PAMELA BIRD

APPLICANT

AND

JUDGE BRADY, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENTS

[2008] IEHC 180

No. 1369 J.R./2007

THE HIGH COURT

Abstract:

Criminal law - Judicial review - Theft - Legal aid - At risk - Custodial sentence - Neeson v. Judge Brady 2007 No. 1145 JR - Role of District Judge

Facts: The applicant, in proceedings relating to Neeson v. Judge Brady, who was charged with theft and had the benefit of legal aid unknown to the court. Confusion arose as to whether the applicant was at risk or not. The issue arose as to whether a renewed application was appropriate.

Held by Hedigan J., that a District Judge was entitled to look to the gravity of an offence. The role of the Judge was to decide whether to accept or reject the view of the prosecution. The reliefs sought would be refused.

Reporter: E.F.

NEESON v BRADY & DPP UNREP HEDIGAN 11.6.2008 2008 IEHC 182

Mr. Justice John Hedigan

1 This case was heard together with the above case of Gerard Neeson because essentially the same issues arise. Herein, the charge involved the theft of food and clothing to the value of €70.00. The facts are different in the following ways. Three days after the decision of the District Court Judge in this matter, the applicant in the District Court received from another District Court Judge a custodial sentence of nine months in relation to a separate conviction for theft. She further received a six months suspended sentence in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court four weeks later in another matter. On both occasions she had the benefit of legal aid. This was not known nor brought to the attention of the Judge herein when he dealt with the application for legal aid. Secondly, there was some confusion as to whether the presenting Garda thought she was "at risk". The evidence as presented by the applicant herein is accepted by the respondent and consequently I proceed on the basis that the Garda in question had always expressed the view that the applicant was "at risk". I reiterate what I have decided in the Neeson case. Applying the same principles here, it appears to me that it might well be a case in which a renewal of the application might be considered. Were the District Court Judge to be appraised of information concerning the applicant's numerous other convictions and two...