Farrell v Governor of St. Patrick's Institution

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hogan
• Judgment Date: 19 October 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 429
• Date: 19 October 2012

[2012] IEHC 429

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1314 SS/2012]

Farrell v Governor of St Patricks Institution

IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUIRY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40.4.2 OF THE CONSTITUTION

BETWEEN/

MICHAEL FARRELL

APPLICANT

AND

GOVERNOR OF ST. PATRICK'S INSTITUTION

RESPONDENT

RSC O.84 r 20 (8)(B)

CONSTITUTION ART 40.2.2

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S15

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2

CONSTITUTION ART 34.1

SALAJA v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP HOGAN 10.2.2011 2011/45/12823 2011 IEHC 51

DUNNE v GOVERNOR OF CLOVERHILL PRISON (NO2) UNREP SUPREME 21.5.2009 2009/14/ 3214 2009 IESC 43

OKANUNDE v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2013 1 ILRM 1

Practice and procedure - Criminal law - Criminal procedure - Constitutional law - Remand - Stay - Judicial review - Two sets of proceedings - Jurisdiction to make the order - Whether order was lawful

Facts: The District Court had made an order remanding the applicant in custody notwithstanding the existence of a stay order which had been made by the Court in relation to one of two sets of proceedings in existence. The stay had been granted in separate judicial review proceedings. The original order granting leave made no reference to the stay. Thereafter the applicant renewed the application for a stay relating to road traffic proceedings. He was not released as he had been remanded in custody for road traffic charges. He was produced in custody and the stay order of the High Court was produced before the District Court, arguing that the District Court had no jurisdiction. The District Court did not accept the submission and remanded the applicant in custody on 5 July 2012.

Held by Hogan J that it was plain that the order of the District Court remanding the applicant in custody until 5 July 2012 was invalid. There was no proper legal basis for his detention. The applicant was entitled to be released from custody on 4 July 2012. The District Court had no jurisdiction to make the order which he did having regard to the terms of the stay.

1 1. Order 84, r. 20(8)(b) RSC (as inserted by the Rules of the Superior Courts (Judicial Review) 2011, S.I. No. 691 of 2011) provides that where the High Court grants leave to apply for judicial review, then the Court may also:-

"....(b) where the relief sought is an order of prohibition or certiorari, make an order staying the proceedings, order or decision to which the application relates until the determination of the application for judicial review or until the Court otherwise orders."

2 2. It is the meaning of the words "make an order staying the proceedings" that is at issue here in this application under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. While this issue has arisen by reason of the somewhat complex interaction of two sets of criminal prosecutions, in essence the question is whether the District Court was entitled to make an order remanding the applicant, Mr. Farrell, in custody (albeit with consent to bail), the existence of a stay order which had been made by this Court relating to one set of those very proceedings notwithstanding.

3 3. The stay itself had been granted in separate judicial review proceedings (2012 No. 554JR). In those proceedings the applicant, Mr. Farrell, first secured leave ex parte from Birmingham J. to apply for judicial review on 18 ^th June, 2012. The applicant was then facing a miscellany of charges arising under the Road Traffic Acts which were then pending in the District Court. In the judicial review proceedings the applicant sought to restrain his trial in respect of those charges on the ground, inter alia, that he had been refused legal aid. The original order of 18 ^th June, 2012, granting leave made no reference to a stay, even though such relief had been included in the grounding statement made.

4 4. A week later the applicant renewed the application for a stay in respect of these Road Traffic Act offences and on 25 June, 2012, such a stay was granted ex parte by Birmingham J. The curial part of the order made on that date was that:-

"IT IS ORDERED that the proceedings currently pending before Trim District Court on foot of [the Road Traffic Act charges] be hereby stayed pending the determination of this application for judicial review or until further Order...."

5 5. In addition to the Road Traffic Act charges, the applicant had been separately convicted on 27 ^th April, 2012, of an offence under s. 15 of Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, and he received a three month sentence. It is accepted that once the statutory remission was taken into account the applicant was scheduled to be released in respect of this offence on 4 ^th July, 2012.

6 6. As it happens, however, he was not released on that day by reason of events which took place in Trim District Court in respect of the Road Traffic Act charges. The applicant had originally been remanded in custody on 1 ^st May, 2012, with consent to bail on these charges and similar orders had been made on a number of occasions over the following six weeks or so. On 21 ^st June, 2012, the applicant had been remanded in custody with consent to bail to 28 ^th June.

7 7. On the 28 ^th June the applicant was produced in custody before Judge Brennan in the Trim District Court. The stay order which had been made by Birmingham J. some three days earlier was laid before the District Court and counsel for the applicant submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order remanding the applicant in custody...