Carroll v Mangan & DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Miss Justice Laffoy
• Judgment Date: 10 November 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] IEHC 162
• Docket Number: Record No. 334 J.R./1995
• Court: High Court
• Date: 10 November 1998

[1998] IEHC 162

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 334 J.R./1995

CARROLL v. MANGAN & DPP

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

STEPHEN CARROLL

APPLICANT

AND

JUDGE JOSEPH MANGAN AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENTS

Citations:

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S27

O'CALLAGHAN V CLIFFORD 1993 3 IR 603

HEALY, STATE V DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S3

Synopsis

Criminal

Judicial review; certiorari; prohibition; conviction for possession of controlled drug; refusal to accede to application for adjournment to allow applicant to call a defence witness; previous adjournments granted on request of the applicant; whether applicant's defence prejudiced; whether violation of applicant's constitutional right to constitutional justice and fair procedures Held: Relief refused; applicant had not established that his defence had been prejudiced; no violation of applicant's constitutional right to due process (High Court: Laffoy J 10/11/1998)

Carroll v Judge Mangan

The question of an adjournment is a matter for the discretion of the District Court Judge which said discretion must be exercised within constitutional parameters. The applicant had not established how he was going to be prejudiced by the absence of the evidence of the witness in question nor had he established how he had been deprived of his constitutional right to fair procedures by the refusal of his application for an adjournment. The High Court so held in dismissing the application.

Judgment of

Miss Justice Laffoy

1 delivered on 10th November, 1998 .

2 On 6th July, 1995 the first named Respondent, Judge Mangan, convicted the Applicant on one count of possession of a controlled drug, cannabis resin, contrary to Section 3 and Section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act,1977; as amended, and fined the Applicant £300, with five months to pay, with the direction that the Applicant be imprisoned for 45 days in default of payment.

3 By Order of this Court (McCracken J.) made on 18th December, 1995 the Applicant was granted leave to apply by way of an application for Judicial Review for the following reliefs:-

4 (1) An Order of Certiorari quashing the conviction.

5 (2) An Order of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondents from taking any further steps in the prosecution of the offence;

6 on the ground that the failure of Judge Mangan to accede to an application made by the Applicant for an adjournment to enable him to call a defence witness prejudiced the Applicant in his defence and constituted a violation of the Applicant's constitutional right to constitutional justice and fair procedures, thus rendering his trial as being one other than in due course of law.

7 While there is a conflict of evidence in relation to some of the facts at issue, there is no conflict in relation to the facts which are most germane to the Applicant's application. Detective Garda Patrick Crowley was responsible for the instigation of the prosecution against the Applicant. On 12th April, 1995 he obtained a summons returnable to the District Court sitting in Limerick City on 8th June, 1995 at 2.30 p.m. The matter was adjourned on four occasions, from 8th June, 1995 to 15th June, 1995, from 15th June, 1995 to 22nd June, 1995, from 22nd June, 1995 to 29th June, 1995, and finally from 29th June, 1995 to 6th July, 1995. The Applicant was in the District Court on each occasion and on each occasion he was remanded in custody. Judge Mangan dealt with the matter on 15th June, 1995, in addition to dealing with it on 6th July, 1995.

8 The Applicant, who was in custody on 6th July, 1995, did not have legal representation. At the commencement of the hearing, when the prosecution indicated that it wanted to proceed with the trial, the Applicant applied for an adjournment on the ground that a defence witness, Alan Duggan, was not present. The Applicant intimated to the Court that Mr. Duggan was an essential witness for his defence and that he had been in Court on each occasion when the case had been previously listed. Detective Garda Crowley objected to the application. He told the Court that the matter had been adjourned on the previous occasions at the behest of the Applicant for various reasons and that Mr. Duggan had not been present in Court on any of the previous occasions. Judge Mangan refused the application for an adjournment and proceeded to hear the matter. During the course of the hearing the Applicant left Court and returned to the cell area without participating further in the matter.

9 ...