DPP v Bailey
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Faherty |
| Judgment Date | 03 October 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IEHC 627 |
| Docket Number | [2017 No. 61 S.S.] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 03 October 2017 |
[2017] IEHC 627
THE HIGH COURT
Faherty J.
[2017 No. 61 S.S.]
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 52 OF THE COURTS
(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1961
Practice & Procedures – S. 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 ('1961 Act') – Consultative case – S. 15 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951 ('1951 Act') – Failure to bring accused to the Court outside prescribed statutory time-limit – Violation of constitutional rights
Facts: The present case came by way of a case stated before the High Court wherein the District Court Judge sought the opinion of the High Court pursuant to s. 52 of the 1961 Act. The District Judge sought the opinion of the High Court on two questions, namely whether there was a failure to comply with s. 15(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1951 in the present case wherein the two accused persons were arrested after 5 p.m. and they were not produced the following day before the District Court at around 10 a.m. and whether that failure to comply with the said statutory provision was to divest the District Court of the jurisdiction to deal with the charges against the accused.
Ms. Justice Faherty answered the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative but with a rider. The Court held that the accused persons were arrested in the evening and they were not brought by the Garda at the commencement of the sitting of the District Court Judge the following day; there was non-compliance with s. 15(3) of the 1951 Act by the Garda. The Court held that, however, the failure to comply with s. 15 (3) of the 1951 Act did not divest the District Court of jurisdiction to begin a hearing unless the case was considered on evidence. The Court observed that a Court was justified in refusing to begin the hearing only when the process by which the person was brought before the Court involved a deliberate and conscious violation of constitutional rights of that person.
This is a consultative case stated by Judge David McHugh, Judge of the District Court pursuant to the provisions of s. 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, as amended.
The learned District Judge sets out the facts of the case, as follows:
'1. I presided at a sitting of Blanchardstown District Court on 4th October 2016 which sitting commenced at 10.30a.m. The Accused, who had been arrested on the 3rd October 2016 after 5p.m. were brought before the Court at sometime in and around 12 midday, when evidence of arrest charge and caution was given to the Court by Garda Daryl J. Hearns in respect of the first named Accused and by Garda Peter Barber in the respect of the second named Accused.
At the said hearing, the prosecutor was represented by Garda Daryl J. Hearns and Garda Peter Barber of Ronanstown Garda Station. The first named Accused was represented by Ms. Fiona Brennan, solicitor of Merchants House, 20-30 Merchants Quay, Dublin 8 and the second named Accused by Mr. Simon Fleming solicitor, of Connolly Finan Fleming Solicitors, 55 Montpelier Hill, Arbour Hill, Dublin 7.
The facts as proved or admitted or agreed and as found by me were as follows:
a. The Court sat for criminal business in or around 10.30am on the 4th October 2016.
b. The Accused had been arrested in or around 11pm on the 3rd October 2016, the previous day, and at a time after the hour of 5p.m. They were brought to Ronanstown Garda Station were they were detained overnight.
c. The Accused were charged the following day in and around 5.36a.m. on the 4th October 2016. The first named Accused was charged on foot of charge sheets 17125996, 17126019,17126002, 17126027 and 17126035. The second named Accused was charged on foot of charge sheets 17126092, 17126084, 17126076, 17126068, 17126051, 17126043 and 17126108. A separate District Court bench warrant was also in existence for the second named Accused.
d. At approximately 10am on 4th October 2016, the Accused were collected from Ronanstown Garda Station. They were brought to the Criminal Courts of Justice with other prisoners who were also being transported to various courts. The prison van attended in the first instance at the Criminal Courts of Justice in order to deposit a number of prisoners there. Both accused were due to be brought to Blanchardstown District Court and accordingly they were not brought before any Court in the Criminal Courts of Justice but rather remained in the van which they were being transported while the other prisoners were dispatched to the Criminal Courts of Justice.
e. The Accused were thereafter conveyed to Blanchardstown District Court arriving at approximately 11.35a.m. Upon arrival they were detained in a court cell and were not brought to court immediately.
f. The Accuseds' case was called at approximately 11.30a.m. but the Accused were not present before the court. Their case was again called after 12pm when evidence of arrest charge and caution was given.
g. A preliminary application was then made by the solicitors instructed for the first and second named Accused to the effect that the Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case due to non compliance with the provisions of section 15(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1951 [as substituted by section 18(3) of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997]. It was submitted by the legal representatives of both accused that as the Accused not being brought to court with the expedition required by that section and in particular at the commencement of the sitting of the Court, that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the case.
h. Being of the opinion that it was desirable to refer the questions of law set out hereunder to the High Court for its determination, I seek the determination of the said questions of law by the High Court.
i. The Accused were admitted to bail pending the resolution of the issues that had arisen and in particular whether I had jurisdiction to proceed with the case at all.'
The learned District Judge submits the following questions for this court.
'a. Whether, in the circumstances outlined ... there was a failure to comply with the relevant statutory provisions, namely s. 15(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1951 (as amended), in the manner in which the Accused were brought before the District Court on the 4th October 2016?
b. Whether, if the answer to (a) is yes, the effect of the failure to comply with the said statutory provision, was to divest the District Court of jurisdiction to deal with the charges against the Accused or to make further orders in the case?
c. Whether, if the answer to (b) is no, the failure to comply with the said statutory provision, is of any effect?'
Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 1951(hereinafter 'the 1951 Act') [as inserted by s. 18 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions] Act 1997 provides as follows:
'15. (1) A person arrested pursuant to a warrant shall on arrest be brought, as soon as practicable, before a judge of the District Court having jurisdiction to deal with the offence concerned.
(2) A person arrested without warrant shall, on being charged with an offence, be brought, as soon as practicable, before a judge of the District Court having jurisdiction to deal with the offence concerned.
(3) Where a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant later than the hour of 5 o'clock on any evening or, having been arrested without warrant, is charged after that hour and a judge of the District Court is due to sit in the District Court District in which the person was arrested not later than noon on the following day, it shall be sufficient compliance with subsection ( 1) or (2) of this section, as the case may be, if he is brought before a judge of the District Court sitting in that District Court District at the commencement of the sitting.
(4) If the accused is remanded on bail and there and then finds bail, the case shall be remitted to the next sitting of the District Court.
(5) In any other event, the case shall be remitted to a sitting of the District Court at a named place to be held within a period not exceeding 8 days of the arrest.
(6) This section is without prejudice to the provisions of any enactment relating to proceedings after arrest or charge in particular cases.'
As can be seen therefore, there is a general requirement under subss. 1 and 2 of s. 15 to convey a prisoner to court as soon as practicable. Pursuant to subs. 3, certain persons must be brought before the District Court at 'the commencement of the sitting'. (Note to self: Rephrase)
Two matters arise for preliminary consideration. In the course of their respective submissions, counsel for the accused posited that the Court may require further information in order to answer the questions posed in the case stated. Albeit that it is not provided for in legislation, it was submitted that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to request such information. The case that is made for such a course of action is that if the Court forms the opinion that there was non-compliance with the provisions of s. 15(3), one matter that the Court could consider in the context of determining the second and third questions is whether the non-compliance was a one-off event or whether it was a common practice. It is not known from the case stated whether the procedures for delivering prisoners to Blanchardstown District Court are utilised in every case, namely by the guards using one transport vehicle which does a circuit of the District Courts in the Dublin District. Counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial