Freeman v Governor of Wheatfield Prison

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Mahon
Judgment Date15 June 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] IECA 177
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)
Docket NumberAppeal No.: 2015CA520
Date15 June 2016

Irvine J.

Sheehan J.

Mahon J.

Jake Freeman
Respondent/Appellant
- and -
The Governor of Wheatfield Place of Detention
Appellant/Respondent

[2016] IECA 177

Mahon J.

Appeal No.: 2015CA520

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Unlawful detention – Committal warrant – Drug offences – Appellant seeking the detention of the respondent – Whether the committal warrant was fatally flawed

Facts: The respondent, Mr Freeman, was convicted of an offence under s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 in the District Court on 28th September 2015. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment. The warrant on foot of which Mr Freeman was committed to prison made no reference to the determination of the DPP that the matter be tried summarily. Mr Freeman was released from custody on foot of a High Court order of 9th October 2015, following an Inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, in which both the respondent and the appellant, the Governor of Wheatfield Place of Detention, participated. The High Court order was to the effect that??the said return to the said order dated the 7th October 2015 is insufficient to satisfy the detention of the Applicant as aforesaid doth order that the Applicant be released forthwith from such detention?. The respondent had served approximately two weeks of the four month sentence at that point in time. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that: (i) the High Court judge erred in law in determining that the DPP conferred jurisdiction on the District Court in respect of offences which can be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment at the election of the DPP (i.e. hybrid offences) where the District Court?s jurisdiction to try such offences is proscribed by statute;

(ii) the High Court judge erred in law in determining that absent the District Court being informed in express and specific terms as to the DPP?s decision whether to proceed summarily or on indictment there is no jurisdiction vested in the District Court in respect of the offence referred to in the relevant committal warrant herein i.e. an offence contrary to s. 15 of the 1977 Act; (iii) the trial judge erred in law in determining that the failure to recite on the relevant committal warrant the fact that the DPP had elected to proceed summarily rendered the committal warrant bad on its face; (iv) the High Court judge erred in determining that the detention was unlawful. The appeal was opposed on the grounds that: (i) the High Court judge correctly determined that the absence of a recital on the face of a committal warrant to the effect that the DPP had directed / consented to the summary trial of the applicant in respect of a hybrid offence (in this instance an offence contrary to s. 15 of the 1977 Act) rendered same insufficient to authorise the lawful detention of the respondent and correctly ordered his release; (ii) the High Court judge was correct in determining that it was a pre-requisite to the jurisdiction of the District Court to sentence the respondent in respect of this charge that that there would be a decision of the Director and that the Court be informed of the Director?s decision to try/sentence the respondent summarily in respect of the offence; (iii) the trial judge?s determination was correct.

Held by Mahon J that the warrant was not defective. He accepted that the DPP directed that the offence with which Mr Freemen was charged be heard and determined in a summary fashion in the District Court. Mahon J held that for the warrant to be valid it was not necessary that it recite that direction, referring to Moore v The Governor of Wheatfield Prison?[2015] IEHC 147.

Mahon J held that he would allow the appeal.

Appeal allowed.

Judgment of Mr. Justice Mahon delivered on the 15th day of June 2016
1

This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the High Court (Noonan J.) of 9th October 2015, following an Inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, in which both parties in the proceedings participated. The High Court order is to the effect that ?the said return to the said order dated the 7th October 2015 is insufficient to satisfy the detention of the Applicant as aforesaid doth order that the Applicant be released forthwith from such detention?.

2

No stay was placed on the order, and costs were awarded against the Respondent (the appellant in this appeal).

Background facts
3

Mr. Freeman was convicted of an offence under s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1997 (as amended) in the District Court (the Children Court) on 28th September 2015. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment. The warrant on foot of which Mr. Freeman was committed to prison made no reference to the determination of the DPP that the matter be tried summarily.

4

Mr. Freeman was released from custody on foot of the High Court order of 9th October 2015 having served approximately two weeks of the four month sentence at that point in time. Had the four month prison sentence run its course, Mr. Freeman would have completed serving his sentence by the end of January 2016, or indeed prior to that date in the event of being granted parole in accordance with normal practice.

The grounds of appeal
5

The appellant's grounds of appeal are as follows:-

(i) The learned High Court judge erred in law in determining that the Director of Public Prosecutions conferred jurisdiction on the District Court in respect of offences which can be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment at the election of the Director of Public Prosecutions (i.e. hybrid offences) where the District Court's jurisdiction to try such offences is proscribed by statute;

(ii) the learned High Court judge erred in law in determining that absent the District Court being informed in express and specific terms as to the Director of Public Prosecution's decision whether to proceed summarily or on indictment there is no jurisdiction vested in the District Court in respect of the offence referred to in the relevant committal warrant herein i.e. an offence contrary to s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977;

(iii) the learned trial judge erred in law in determining that the failure to recite on the relevant committal warrant the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions had elected to proceed summarily rendered the committal warrant bad on its face;

(iv) the learned High Court judge erred in determining that the detention was unlawful.

The grounds of opposition
6

This appeal is opposed on the following grounds:-

(i) The High Court judge correctly determined that the absence of a recital on the face of a committal warrant to the effect that the Director of Public Prosecutions had directed / consented to the summary trial of the applicant in respect of a hybrid offence (in this instance an offence contrary to s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as amended) rendered same insufficient to authorise the lawful detention of the applicant and correctly ordered his release;

(ii) The High Court judge was correct in determining that it was a pre-requisite to the jurisdiction of the District Court to sentence the applicant in respect of this charge that that there would be a decision of the Director and that the Court be informed of the Director's decision to try/sentence the applicant summarily in respect of the offence;

(iii) The trial judge's determination was correct.

7

The central issue in the case relates to the warrant which committed Mr. Freeman to prison on foot of the four month prison sentence imposed in the District Court, and whether such warrant was fatally flawed because it did not make any reference on its face to the determination of the DPP that the matter be tried summarily, thereby resulting in the unlawful detention of Mr. Freeman.

Article 40.4.2
8

Article 40.4.2 provides:-

?Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.?

The proceedings in the District Court
9

Section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 , as amended, provides that persons charged with an offence under s. 15 of the 1977 Act may have different penalties imposed on them depending on whether they are tried summarily in the District Court or on Indictment in the Circuit Criminal Court. The issue as to whether an accused person is to be tried in the District Court or in the Circuit Criminal Court is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the event of the Director directing summary trial in the District Court, it only remains that the District Court judge must be satisfied that the offence is a minor one. If, notwithstanding the decision of the Director, that the case is fit to be tried in the District Court, the District Court judge decides that it is not a minor case, he then sends forward the case for trial in the Circuit Criminal Court.

10

In this case the matter was dealt with summarily in the District Court. Mr. Freeman pleaded guilty and he received a four months prison sentence. It is accepted that the Director directed that the case be tried summarily, and that the District Court judge considered the offence to be a minor one and proceeded to deal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Brennan v The Governor of Castlerea Prison, Maguire v Governor Dochas Centre
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 8 Febrero 2019
    ...elements of a valid warrant have been considered in a number of cases and most recently in Freeman v Governor of Wheatfield Prison [2016] IECA 177 in which Mahon J. delivering the judgment of the Court stated;- “It is long accepted that a warrant if it is to be deemed valid, must show on i......
  • Freeman v Governor of Wheatfield Place of Detention
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 16 Noviembre 2016
    ...appeal from the order of the High Court, it was determined by the Court of Appeal that the committal of the applicant had been lawful ([2016] IECA 177). The respondent subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for an order directing that the applicant serve the remainder of his sentence, ......
  • Maguire v Governor of Mounjoy Prison
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 4 Julio 2017
    ...aware of precisely the lawful authority under which he is held.’ 63 In Freeman v. The Governor of Wheatfield Place of Detention (No. 1) [2016] IECA177, this Court was concerned with an appeal from a decision of the High Court following an enquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, re......
  • DPP v The Dublin Metropolitan District Court
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 Noviembre 2021
    ...Furthermore recent authority, such as the Court of Appeal's decision in Freeman v The Governor of Wheatfield Place of Detention [2016] IECA 177, may signal a relaxation of the strict requirement as to demonstration of jurisdiction on the face of a District Court order in criminal matters. I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT