Farrell v Farrelly

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Hanlon J.,
• Judgment Date: 05 February 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1988 WJSC-HC 1086
• Docket Number: [1987 No. 200 J.R.; 1987 No. 201 J.R.],No.200 J.R./1987
• Court: High Court
• Date: 05 February 1988

1988 WJSC-HC 1086

THE HIGH COURT

No.200 J.R./1987

FARRELL v. FARRELL

BETWEEN:

PAUL FARRELL

APPLICANT

AND

ADAM FARRELLY, PEACE COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT JUSTICE AIDANO'DONNELL

RESPONDENTS

AND

BETWEEN

MARK FARRELL

APPLICANT

AND

ADAM FARRELLY, PEACE COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT JUSTICE AIDANO'DONNELL

RESPONDENTS

Citations:

RYAN V O'CALLAGHAN UNREP BARR 22.07.87 1987/8/2214

LARCENY ACT 1916 S42(1)

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S88(3)

LYNCH, STATE V BALLAGH 1987 ILRM 65, 1986 IR 203

CLARKE, STATE V ROCHE 1987 ILRM 309

RAINEY V DELAP 1989 IR 470

AG V BURKE 1955 IR 30

TYNAN, IN RE 1969 IR 1

DPP V CLEIN 1983 ILRM 76, 1981 ILRM 465

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Warrant

Issue - Validity - Peace commissioner - Powers - Arrest - Conviction of suspect - Judicial review - Discretionary remedy - On 1/2/87 the respondent peace commissioner signed and issued a warrant which authorised the arrest of the applicant - The respondent did so having considered the sworn information of a garda - The applicant was subsequently arrested, charged with receiving stolen property, tried and convicted of the offence and sentenced to serve a term of detention - On 13/7/87 the applicant obtained in the High Court leave to apply for judicial review of the repondent's warrant on the ground that the respondent was not a judge and had not power to sign and issue a warrant for the arrest of the applicant - The applicant then applied by motion on notice to the respondent for an order of certiorari quashing the warrant on that ground - Held, in dismissing the motion, that the garda who arrested the applicant had a genuine suspicion that the applicant was in possession of stolen goods and, therefore, had power at common law to arrest the applicant without recourse to the authority of a warrant: ~Ryan v. O'Callaghan~ (Barr J. - 22/7/87) considered - Held that, in any event, there had been no deliberate or conscious violation of any of the applicant's constitutional rights - (1987/200 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 5/2/88)

|Farrell v. Farrelly|

GARDA SIOCHANA

Powers

Arrest - Common law - Suspicion - Possession of stolen goods - Warrant of arrest obtained from a peace commissioner - Warrant executed - Jurisdiction of peace commissioner challenged - Arrest valid at common law - ~See~ Criminal Law, warrant - (1987/200 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 5/2/88) - [1988] I.R. 201

|Farrell v. Farrelly|

CRIMINAL LAW

Arrest

Powers - Garda Siochana - Common law - Reasonable suspicion - A garda had reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person, later convicted, had in his possession stolen goods - The garda procured and executed a warrant for the arrest of that person - Validity of warrant challenged - Garda had common-law power to make the arrest - ~See~ Criminal Law, warrant - (1987/200 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 5/2/88) - [1988] I.R. 201

|Farrell v. Farrelly|

1 Judgment of O'Hanlon J.,delivered the 5th day of February, 1988.

2 The Applicants in these two applications are Paul Farrell and Mark Farrell, and as the circumstances in each case are the same in all material respects, this judgment is common to both applications.

3 The factual background to the applications may be gleaned from an affidavit of Pol O Murchu, Solicitor, filed on behalf of the Applicant in each case, and a replying affidavit of Garda Martin R. Caffrey filed on behalf of the Respondents in each case.

4 Garda Caffrey deposes that on the night of 1st February, 1987,he went to the home of Mark, Paul and Maureen Farrell at No. 8 Adare Avenue, Coolock, and before entering the house information was given to him which led him to believe that there was property in the house which was alleged to have been stolen, and furthermore, that Paul and Mark Farrell had been chased by the injured party into the house while they carried the property.

5 In these circumstances he applied, at about 9.30 p.m. on the same date, to Adam Forrelly, Peace Commissioner, (the first-named Respondent), by way of complaint made on oath and in writing, for warrants to arrest Paul Farrell and Mark Farrell, and warrants for their arrest were duly issued by the said Respondent. Before executing them, however, Garda Caffrey returned to the said Adam Farrelly shortly after midnight and obtained a warrant to search the premises at 8, Adare Avenue, Coolock. He then deposes that at approximately 7 a.m. on the 2nd February, 1987, he entered the said house "on foot of the said warrants", accompanied by other members of the Garda Siochana, read over the warrants of arrest to Paul Farrell and Mark Farrell; arrested them and removed them to Coolock Garda Station.

6 They were charged, while in the Station, with receiving stolen property, cautioned, and made no reply. On the same day, that is the 2nd February, 1987, the two Applicants were taken before District Justice O'Donnell, the second-named Respondent, and formally charged, remanded - initially in custody, and at a later stage on bail - and ultimately the charges were dealt with before District Justice O'Donnell on the 29th June, 1987, when each of the Applicants was convicted of receiving stolen property. In the case of Paul Farrell, he was sentenced to sixmonths" detention in St.Patrick's Institution, and in the case of Mark Farrell, he was ordered to be detained in Trinity House, Lusk, until the 6th July, 1987, when he was to be brought before the District Court again to be dealt withfurther.

7 An application was made to the High Court on behalf of each of the Applicants for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the said convictions, the relief sought being Orders of Certiorari to quash the convictions and orders of dentention based on the convictions, and also to quash the Search Warrant and Warrants for Arrest issued by the first-named Respondent as aforesaid.

8 By...