Dooley v DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Eagar |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IEHC 271 |
| Date | 05 May 2017 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2016 No. 185 J.R.] [2016 No. 212 J.R] |
AND
AND
[2017] IEHC 271
[2016 No. 185 J.R.]
[2016 No. 212 J.R]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Crime & Sentencing – S. 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 – S. 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 – Imposition of fine – Imprisonment in default for payment of fine – Issuance of committal warrants – Non-compliance with the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 – Presumption of retrospectivity
Facts: The applicants, in two sets of different proceedings, sought an order for quashing the committal warrants issued against them. The applicants were convicted and ordered to pay fine, in default of which they were liable to be imprisoned. The applicants argued that since the committal warrants were issued after the commencement of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014, the said Act applied retrospectively and they were the subjects to the prescribed procedure under the said Act of 2014.
Mr. Justice Eagar quashed the committal warrants issued against the applicants and directed the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘DPP’) to initiate proceedings under s. 7(4) of the 2014 Act. The Court held that there was explicit provision in the 2014 Act that it would be applied retrospectively as it was enacted for the benefit of the persons who were unable to pay the fine and therefore, it made no difference if the applicants were ordered to pay the fine before or after the commencement of the 2014 Act. The Court held that the prospective application of the said Act would lead to absurdity, which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.
The applicants seek to quash committal warrants for their arrest and detention. The warrant for the arrest and detention of Mr. Dooley was issued on the 17th February, 2016 by Judge Desmond Zaidan sitting at Naas District Court. The warrant for the arrest and detention of Mr. Owens was issued on the 14th March, 2016 by Tom Ward the District Court Clerk for the Dublin Metropolitan District.
The entirety of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 was commenced on the 11th January, 2016 by the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 (Commencement Order 2016) ( SI 6 of 2016).
The applicants' claim is that the aforesaid warrants cannot be executed without compliance with the terms of section 7 of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014.
In each case leave was granted by Mr. Justice Humphreys to apply for judicial review to stop the respondents taking any further steps to execute the aforsesaid committal warrants. The applicants sought a stay on the execution of the aforesaid committal warrants pending the determination of these proceedings.
In relation to Mr. Dooley, the court granted leave on the 16th March, 2016 and in the case of Mr. Owens the court granted leave on the 11th April, 2016.
The essential issue in this case is whether or not the provisions of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 (herein ‘the 2014 Act’) are applicable to the applicants' circumstances – this is to say circumstances where the applicants were convicted and sentenced before the commencement of the 2014 Act, but the committal warrants issued after the commencement of the 2014 Act.
The applicant was convicted in respect of four separate offences contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 on the 22nd July, 2015. He was ordered to pay fines in the sum of €500.00 separately in respect of each of the matters, within a period of ninety days, and he was to be imprisoned in default of payment within the stated period.
On the 11th March, 2016 the applicant was in communication with Garda Gibson of Lucan Garda Station in relation to the fact that the committal warrants had been issued for his arrest and detention. He was informed of the intention of An Garda Síochána to execute the two warrants.
The affidavit of Gareth Noble solicitor of KOD Lyons Solicitors avers that Patrick Dooley contacted his office in order to seek legal advice where he had been informed that a committal warrant was in existence for his arrest and detention. He stated on affidavit that on receipt of the committal warrant, it was immediately apparent to him that the warrant did not conform to the provisions of the 2014 Act.
Mr. Owens was convicted of an offence contrary to s. 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 on the 3rd July, 2015. He was ordered to pay a fine in the sum of €500.00 within a period of four months, and he was to be imprisoned in default of paying the fine within the stated period.
Mr. Owens stated that in March, 2016 he became aware that a committal warrant was in existence for his arrest. He said that on the 24th March, 2016 his solicitor was furnished with a copy of the relevant committal warrant and it became apparent that the warrant did not conform to the provisions of the 2014 Act.
The 2014 Act provides for a mechanism whereby a person who fails to pay a fine should be brought before the District Court to facilitate representations being made by him, or on his behalf, to prevent his imprisonment, and which allows for staged payment, or for an alternative to imprisonment, such as community service.
Section 7(4) of the 2014 Act provides for a prerequisite hearing (on notice to the fined person):
‘The appropriate court official concerned shall, by notice in writing served on the fined person, require the person to appear before the court on the date and at the time specified in the notice, and to provide to the court a statement in writing of his or her financial circumstances.’
S. 7(5) of the Act demands that specified criteria must be satisfied before a committal may be ordered in default. In respect of summary offences, these measures provide, inter alia, for the recovery of the sums by coercive means other than imprisonment (such as attachment to salary) and for the mandatory consideration of a community service option, prior to any committal taking place:
‘(a) The court shall, after considering a statement provided to it pursuant to subsection (4) in deciding what order to make under subsection (1)—
(i) first, give consideration to making an attachment order in respect of the fined person, and
(ii) second, if it is satisfied that it would not be appropriate for it to make an attachment order in respect of the fined person, give consideration to making, subject to subsection (2), a recovery order or community service order in respect of the fined person.
(b) Where the court is satisfied that it would not be appropriate for it to make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens and Dooley v DPP
...as the committal warrants issued after the commencement of the 2014 Act. The High Court (Eagar J.) quashed the committal warrants (see [2017] IEHC 271). The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal and that appeal was dismissed save that it quashed orders made by the High Court directing ......
-
Case Number: ADJ-00007559. Workplace Relations Commission
...dismissal for stealing bananas.Finally, the judgement of Mr Justice Eager in Lyons v Longford Westmeath Education and Training Board, [2017] IEHC 271, was referred to as a case in which Mr Lyons was not given the right to challenge and cross examine witnesses. In this case, the Eager J held......
-
Owens v DPP
...succeeded in obtaining from the High Court an order quashing the warrant (Dooley and Owens v. The Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors [2017] IEHC 271). The applicants' appeal was unsuccessful save in respect of one element of the High Court order. 4 The respondents do not oppose the appli......