Karadag v DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Meenan |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 422 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 190 JR] |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 422
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Meenan J.
[2018 No. 190 JR]
Judicial review – Legal aid (District Court) certificate – Drunk driving – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether the District Judge erred in law in refusing the applicant’s application for a legal aid (District Court) certificate without having any due regard to the statutory provisions of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962
Facts: The applicant, Ms Karadag, was granted leave to seek judicial review for, inter alia, the following reliefs: (a) an order of certiorari by way of judicial review quashing the order of the District Judge on 7th December, 2017 which order refused the applicant’s application for a legal aid (District Court) certificate in respect of a charge of drunk driving contrary to s. 4(4) (a) and (5) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 bearing the national charge sheet no. 16031263; and (b) a declaration that the District Judge erred in law in refusing the application for a legal aid (District Court) certificate without having any due regard to the statutory provisions of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962.
Held by the High Court that the District Judge carried out the appropriate inquiry into the means of the applicant. The Court held that the District Judge clearly had full regard to the gravity of the offence with which the applicant was charged and had indicated that, if convicted, the applicant would not be facing a custodial sentence. Further, the Court noted that all of this occurred in the context of a charge that had already been dismissed.
The Court held that, by reason of the foregoing, the reliefs sought would be refused.
Reliefs refused.
On 7 December 2017 the applicant appeared before the District Court in respect of a charge of drunk driving contrary to ss. 4(4) (a) and (5) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. The matter had been adjourned on a number of occasions on the basis that a legal point arising in the case was referable to another case, namely Director of Public Prosecutions v. Mihai Avedenei which was awaiting a decision of the Supreme Court (the decision was ultimately delivered on 20 December 2017 ( Director of Public Prosecutions v Avedenei [2017] IESC 77)).
The following is the relevant part of the transcript of the hearing: -
‘Counsel: Judge, I appear for Ms. Karadag instructed by Jacqueline McManus Solicitors. The position is that this a matter where the Supreme Court decision in Avendei
Judge: Yes, I am dismissing the case.
Counsel: Dismissed. Judge, I am also … have an application for legal aid. I understand that it was … there was … an application was made on the last day but there wasn't a statement means available.’
There then followed an exchange between the District Judge and counsel as to the means of the applicant and to the fact that the applicant had no previous convictions.
The hearing continued: -
‘Counsel: … this particular legal point. Though it is an offence which would usually create a risk of, in my respectful submission, a risk of custodial sentence.
Judge: No, well, it wouldn't create a risk of a prison sentence in this Court on a first offence. And in every single case I have dealt with, on a first offence.
Counsel: I fully appreciate that …
Judge: … I only impose a fine, so she is not at risk at all of imprisonment on this charge. And she was driving a car, so in my view, it is not an appropriate case for legal aid.’
The applicant was granted leave to seek judicial review for, inter alia, the following reliefs: -
‘(a) An order of certiorari by way of judicial review quashing the order of the District Judge … on 7th December, 2017 which order refused the applicant's application for a legal aid (District Court) certificate in respect of a charge of drunk driving contrary to s. 4(4) (a) and (5) of the Road Traffic Act, 2010 bearing the national charge sheet no. 16031263.
(b) A declaration that the District Judge erred in law in refusing the application for a legal aid (District Court) certificate without having any due regard to the statutory provisions of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962.’
Section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962 (‘the Act of 1962’) provides: -
‘(1) If it appears to the District Court—
(a) that the means of a person charged before it with an offence are insufficient to enable him to obtain legal aid, and
(b) that by reason of the gravity of the charge or of exceptional circumstances it is essential in the interests of justice that he should have legal aid in the preparation and conduct of his defence before it,
the Court shall, on application being made to it in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial