Michael Farrell aka Regan v Governor of Saint Patrick's Institution

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
JudgeDenham C.J.,O'Donnell J.
Judgment Date10 April 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] IESC 30
Docket Number[2012 No. 521]
Date10 April 2014

[2014] IESC 30

THE SUPREME COURT

Denham C.J.

Hardiman J.

O'Donnell J.

Clarke J.

MacMenamin J.

Appeal No: 521/2012
Farrell (aka Regan) v Governor of St Patricks Institution
Between/
Michael Farrell also known as Regan
Applicant/Respondent

and

The Governor of Saint Patrick's Institution
Respondent/Appellant

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S15

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (LEGAL AID) ACT 1962

MALONEY v MEMBER IN CHARGE TERENURE GARDA STATION UNREP SUPREME 18.5.2004 2004/29/6848

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

W (J)(A MINOR) v HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNREP SUPREME 19.2.2014 2014 IESC 8

LOFINMAKIN (A MINOR) & OS v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP SUPREME 20.11.2013 2013/30/8930 2013 IESC 49

G v COLLINS 2005 1 ILRM 1

IRWIN v DEASY 2011 2 IR 752

O'BRIEN v PIAB (NO.2) 2007 1 IR 328

OKUNADE v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 2013 1 ILRM 1

MCDONNELL v BRADY 2001 3 IR 588

RSC O.84 r20(8)(B)

SUPERIOR COURTS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) SI 691/2011

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 9ED P1548

MURDOCH'S DICTIONARY OF IRISH LAW 5ED P1157

JOWITT'S DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH LAW 3ED P2170

COSTELLO THE LAW OF HABEAS CORPUS IN IRELAND 2006

CONSTITUTION ART 40

Criminal Law - Road Traffic Offences - Making off without payment - Bail - Remand in custody - Jurisdiction of District Court to remand in custody - Entitlement to be released - Appeal - Application for an inquiry - Judicial Review - Nature and effect of Grant of Stay - Issue of mootness - Discretion of Court to determine matter - Status Quo - Superior Court Rules

Facts: This was an appeal by the Governor of St. Patrick"s Institution (appellant) from a High Court judgment which declared that Michael Farrell (respondent) was entitled to have been released. Various points were at issue such as whether the District Court had jurisdiction to remand the respondent in custody, despite a stay granted in the High Court in Judicial Review proceedings and as to whether the appeal was moot. The respondent was charged with dangerous driving, failing to keep a vehicle at the scene of an accident and making off without payment. On 1 st May 2012 the respondent was granted bail, remanded in custody with consent to bail until 3 rd May 2012 and remanded on a number of further occasions with consent to bail to 28 th June 2012. The respondent was produced in custody before the District Court on 28 th June 2012. The respondent"s Counsel submitted the District Court had no jurisdiction to make an order remanding the respondent in custody on the charges, as the proceedings had been stayed. The District Court did not accept this and the respondent was remanded in custody with consent to bail on 5 th July 2012, when the matter came before the District Court and the respondent was released. On 4 th July 2012, an application was made to the High Court for an inquiry in which it was submitted the respondent was entitled to be released on same date. The inquiry proceeded to Hearing in the High Court on the 15 thOctober 2012 and the Court held the applicant was entitled to have been released from custody on 4 th July 2012. The appellant appealed on various grounds, such as mootness and the respondent made submissions in respect of same.

Denham C.J held the appeal was moot; the respondent had been released. He stated the respondent had brought an application for an inquiry and the relief which may be granted is release. He went on to state the Court had discretion as to whether it will hear and determine a moot appeal and held he would hear the moot appeal for numerous reasons, such as the decision could potentially affect many criminal District Court cases. Denham C.J held the substantive issue was the nature and effect of a stay and submissions were made by both the appellant and the respondent. For example the appellant submitted the High Court had erred in finding that an order which remanded the respondent on the same terms and conditions was an adverse step. The respondent submitted should a respondent in judicial review proceedings take issue with the form of a stay, the grant of stay could be challenged. Denham C. J cited Superior Courts rules which provided when the High Court grants leave to apply for judicial review the Court may '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'. Denham C. J stated on 25 th June 2012, the High Court had made an order granting a stay and that the proceedings stayed were specifically identified. He went on to say a stay order maintained the status quo and that these District Court proceedings were to be maintained in the status quo until the termination of the application for judicial review. Denham C.J further held when the High Court grants a stay on an application for judicial review, the criminal trial proceedings were postponed or suspended and that the District Court continued to have jurisdiction to make such an order, pending the determination of the application for Judicial Review.

Appeal allowed

1

Judgment delivered on the 10th day of April, 2014, by Denham C.J.

2

Judgment delivered on the 10th of April, 2014, by O'Donnell J.

3

Judgment delivered by Denham CJ & O'Donnell J

4

1. This is an appeal by the Governor of St. Patrick's Institution, the respondent/appellant, referred to as "the appellant", from the judgment of the High Court (Hogan J.) delivered on the 19 th October, 2012, which declared that Michael Farrell, (also known as Regan), referred to as "the respondent", was entitled to have been released on the 4 th July, 2012.

5

2. At issue is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to remand the respondent in custody on the 28 th June until the 5 th July, notwithstanding a stay granted in the High Court (Birmingham J.) in judicial review proceedings. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the issue is relevant to many prosecutions, which are the subject of judicial review proceedings.

6

3. There is a preliminary issue as to whether the appeal is moot.

Background
7

4. The respondent was charged with offences before Trim District Court, two Road Traffic Act offences alleged, being dangerous driving and failing to keep a vehicle at the scene of an accident, and one alleged offence contrary to the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, being making off without payment.

8

5. On the 1 st May, 2012, the respondent was granted bail by Trim District Court, with bail fixed in the sum of €300 on his own bond and a further independent surety of €300. He was remanded in custody with consent to bail until the 3 rd May, 2012. He was remanded on a number of further occasions, with consent to bail, to the 28 th June, 2012.

9

6. On the 28 th June the respondent was produced in custody before the District Court in Trim. The stay order which had been made by the High Court (Birmingham J.) on the 25 th June was before the District Court. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the District Court had no jurisdiction to make an order remanding the respondent in custody on the charges as the proceedings had been stayed.

10

7. Trim District Court did not accept counsel's submission, and the respondent was remanded in custody, with consent to bail, to Cloverhill District Court on the 5 th July, 2012.

11

8. When the matter came before Cloverhill District Court on the 5 th July, 2012, no further order was made, and the respondent was released.

12

9. On the 4 th July, 2012, there was an application to the High Court for an inquiry pursuant to Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution, in which it was submitted that the respondent was entitled to be released on that date.

13

10. The issue arises in circumstances where the respondent was entitled to be released on the 4 th July, 2012, unless the District Court order made on the 28 th June remanding him in custody until the 5 th July, 2012 is valid.

Application for an Inquiry pursuant to Article 40.4.2
14

11. The application for an inquiry pursuant to Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution was grounded on the affidavit of John Quinn, Solicitor, sworn on the 4 th July 2012.

15

12. The facts deposed to by John Quinn included that on the 27 th April, 2012, the respondent was convicted of an offence contrary to s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, as amended, and was sentenced to three months detention. with remission the respondent would be released from this detention on the 4 th July, 2012.

16

13. However, there was also the warrant from Trim District Court remanding the respondent in custody until the 5 th July, 2012.

17

14. Mr. Quinn referred to the charges set out earlier in this judgment which were pending in the District Court, reference was made to the several remands in custody with consent to bail leading up to the order of the 21 st June, 2012, when the respondent was remanded in custody with consent to bail to the 28 th June, 2012.

18

15. Certain legal issues arose in relation to the prosecution before Trim District Court. Leave was sought to apply for judicial review of matters including a refusal of legal aid, and seeking declarations in respect of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962, before the High Court (Birmingham J.) on the 18 th June, 2012.

19

16. On the 18 th June, 2012, in the judicial review proceedings, the High Court (Birmingham J.) granted leave to apply for judicial review.

20

17. On the 25 th June, 2012, a stay was sought from the High Court (Birmingham J.), in the same proceedings and it was granted.

21

18. The order of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Douglas v DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 7 April 2017
    ...Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Michael Farrell (aka Regan) v. The Governor of St. Patrick's Institution [2014] IESC 30 in which Denham C.J. stated: '61. It is clear that a stay order is not an order terminating proceedings. It is an order staying, postponing, and ......
  • Freeman v Governor of Wheatfield Prison
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 15 June 2016
    ...17 Also in his judgment, Hogan J. referred to comments made by Denham C.J. in Farrell v. Governor of St. Patricks Institution [2014] IESC 30 in which she identified five reasons why the Supreme Court in that case should hear what it decided was a moot appeal. These included the following th......
  • Patrick Joseph Mcdonagh v Governor of Mountjoy Prison
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 20 March 2015
    ...the fact the current proceedings may be moot before refusing to hear an appeal. Farrell v. Governor of St. Patrick”s Institution [2014] IESC 30 considered. 1 1. The applicant in these Article 40 proceedings, Mr. McDonagh, was convicted in his absence in the District Court on 18 th December ......
  • AIlied Irish Bank Plc v King
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 30 September 2020
    ...in part or on any particular terms or conditions that the court thinks fit.” They cite Farrell v. Governor of St. Patrick's Institution [2014] IESC 30, [2014] 1 I.R. 699 in support of that 54 In Fairell Denham C.J., having considered various definitions of a stay, observed at pp. 713 to 7......
  • 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