Leonard v District Judge Garavan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2002
• Neutral Citation: 2002 WJSC-HC 3632
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [No. 721 J.R./2001],[2001 No. 721 JR]
• Date: 30 April 2002

2002 WJSC-HC 3632

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 721 J.R./2001]

LEONARD v. GARAVAN & DPP

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

RITA LEONARD

APPLICANT

AND

DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN GARAVAN

RESPONDENT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

NOTICE PARTY

Citations:

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S6

NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S2(1)

CONSTITUTION ART 38.1

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2

HEALY, STATE V DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325

POWELL V STATE OF ALABAMA 287 US 45 1932

GILL V CONNELLAN 1987 IR 541

O'NEILL V BUTLER 1979 ILRM 243

CAHILL V REILLY 1994 3 IR 547

SWEENEY V BROPHY 1993 2 IR 202

ROCK V GOVERNOR ST PATRICK'S INSTITUTION UNREP SUPREME 22.3.1993 1993/5/1383

C, STATE V MIN JUSTICE 1967 IR 106

R (MARTIN) C MAHONY 1910 2 IR 695

ANISMITIC V FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION 1969 2 AC 147

HOLLAND, STATE V KENNEDY 1977 IR 193

O'REILLY V MACKMAN 1983 2 AC 237

KILLEEN V DPP 1997 3 IR 218

ABENGLEN PROPERTIES, STATE V CORPORATION OF DUBLIN 1984 IR 381

HARTE V LABOUR COURT 1996 2 IR 171

FARRELL V AG 1998 1 IR 203

HAUGHEY, IN RE 1971 IR 217

FLANAGAN V UCD 1988 IR 724

O'CALLAGHAN V CLIFFORD 1993 3 IR 603

BUCHAN, STATE V COYNE 1936 70 ILTR 185

D V DPP 1994 2 IR 465

BYRNE V MCDONNELL & MURPHY 1997 1 IR 392 1996 1 ILRM 543

MCSORLEY V GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1996 2 ILRM 331 1996/6/1753

CLARKE V KIRBY 1998 ILRM 30

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Legal Representation

Judicial review - Certiorari - Declarations - Legal representation - Post conviction stage - Whether rights guaranteed under natural and constitutional justice adhered to (2001/721JR - McKechnie J - 30/4/2002)

Leonard v District Judge Garavan - [2003] 4 IR 60

The applicant obtained leave to apply for judicial review of the validity of convictions. She sought orders of certiorari quashing the said convictions as well as a variety of declarations, all to the effect that by reason of the circumstances prevailing, including her mental state and condition, her rights as guaranteed under natural and constitutional justice were not adhered to.

Held by McKechnie J. in granting an order quashing the convictions that where following conviction there is a real possibility of a custodial sentence being imposed, a District Judge should inform an accused person of his right to legal representation. If representation had been availed of at the post conviction stage, the sentence may not have been as long.

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie dated the 30th day of April 2002.

1. The Convictions:

2 On the 21 ^st May, 2001, the applicant in the above entitled judicial review proceedings was convicted by the respondent judge at Galway District Court of an offence contrary to s. 6 of the Criminal Justice ( Public Order) Act, 1994. In respect thereof she was fined £200, bound over to keep the peace and ordered to stay away from Eyre Square in Galway. On the 11 ^th October of that year, she again appeared before the same District Judge on foot of four summonses, three of which alleged further public order offences with the fourth being an assault charge contrary to s. 2 (1) of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997. She was convicted on all charges and by way of penalty the trial judge imposed a prison sentence of six months on the assault charge and three months on each of the public order offences with all sentences to run consecutively. In other words a total period of fifteen months imprisonment was specified. On the 5 ^th November of last year she obtained leave from this Court to challenge by way of an application for judicial review the validity of the aforesaid convictions. In essence she now seeks from this Court orders of certiorari quashing the said convictions, as well as a variety of declarations, all to the effect that by reason of the circumstances prevailing, including her mental state and condition, her rights as guaranteed under natural and constitutional justice were not adhered to.

2. Evidence of the charges:

3 On the 21 ^st May when the case was called, Sergeant Frank Broderick, having given evidence of arrest, charge and caution, then outlined the circumstances which occurred on the afternoon of May 19 ^th. On that occasion whilst on duty in Garda uniform he saw a woman, whom he recognised as the applicant, on the footpath outside the Ulster Bank at Eyre Square in Galway. She was shouting loudly and drawing attention to herself and at the said time was handing out leaflets A number of persons passed her by, including three young boys. She then made a charge after one of these boys and followed him into Williamsgate Street. Outside Holland's shop the sergeant stated that he saw the applicant grab hold of one of these boys, push him up against a wall and slap him about the head on a number of occasions. Both the boy and the applicant were screaming as she continued to hit him. Several people stopped and two middle aged women attempted to intervene between the body and the applicant. The sergeant then approached and separated them. The applicant was hysterical and had to be restrained from continuing her attack on the boy. Throughout this time Ms. Leonard shouted abuse at all and sundry and was roaring about God and the Devil and was calling down curses upon all those present. The sergeant was satisfied that she was not drunk but that "her conduct and manner were abnormal". He was of the view that she was a risk to both herself and to others and was not in a fit state to be left on the street. Accordingly she was arrested and taken to Mill Street Garda Station where the custody record indicates a continuation of this abnormal behaviour for the following four hours. Ultimately at about 5.20 p.m., when the Gardaí were satisfied that she had calmed sufficiently, she was allowed to return home in the company of a Mr. Lacey, who had arrived in the station earlier during the course of that afternoon.

4 Evidence of the facts and circumstances surrounding the other three public order offences and the assault charge is not as elaborate or as detailed as that available with regard to the incident on the 19 ^th May. However, the nature of the public order offences themselves is indicative of the fact that the kind of behaviour which underlined such charges was similar to and reflective of the type of behaviour which surrounded the Eyre Square incident.

3. The applicant's conduct:

5 Throughout the hearing of the case on 21 ^st May, the applicant continuously interrupted the proceedings with the result that the respondent judge had no choice but to caution her on several occasions in relation to her conduct and her outbursts. At the close of the prosecution's case she was invited to give evidence upon oath if she so wished. She proceeded to exercise that right and entered the witness box. From there it would appear, that she gave a speech of approximately fifteen minutes in length, which speech predominantly, if not exclusively, focused on her crusade against drug dealers. At no stage did she address the charge which was then standing against her. She was, as stated above, duly convicted, bound to the peace and as a condition of her bond was obliged to stay away from Eyre Square. Throughout the entirety of the hearing she was in an agitated state, with everybody present in the courtroom being conscious of her excitable disposition.

6 4. In Mr. Gannon's Affidavit sworn to support this application, it is stated on the instructions of the applicant, that some time prior to the commencement of the hearing she approached Mr. Adrian McGlynn Solicitor, to inquire as to whether or not he would duly represent her. Apparently his advice to her was to take a certain course. She disagreed and as averred to in para. 7 of this Affidavit "Mr. McGlynn indicated that (in such circumstances) he would not be in a position to represent her". In the responding Affidavit of Garda O'Brien, from which the above material is extracted and in respect of which there is no challenge, the situation about representation is put slightly differently. At paras, 4, 8 and 9 respectively, of his Affidavit, this Garda conveys the impression that at the commencement of the hearing the applicant was represented by Mr. McGlynn, but at some point shortly thereafter it became evident that this solicitor was no longer acting on her behalf. For all practical purposes I am quite satisfied that the applicant did not have the benefit of any real representation, at any significant time or for any significant portion of this hearing, and consequentially I firmly believe that she was, in substance, unrepresented throughout the case. The reasons for this, the consequences in law and the part played by the learned respondent judge, are all matters hereinafter more particularly dealt with.

7 5. The hearing of the 11 ^th October dealt with four charges with the first two public order offences allegedly having been committed on 17 ^th September, and 5 ^th November, 2000. The resulting summonses in respect of these charges were first returnable before Headford District Court on 8 ^th February, 2001 and were adjourned to the 14 ^thJune, and finally to the hearing date of the 11 ^th October. On 13 ^th September the applicant appeared at the same court to answer two further summonses, the first of which was an alleged assault committed on 8 ^th July, and the second, again a public order offence, allegedly committed on the 14 ^th July. Inspector Ó Domhnaill was present in court and witnessed the behaviour of the applicant on this said return date. When the cases were called Ms. Leonard stepped forward and the respondent judge asked her whether or not she had a solicitor. She responded with a verbal outburst against the Gardaí and the trial judge. She made several allegations of criminality against these persons including a claim that the Gardaí had stolen her bike. She was again asked about her...