Owens and Dooley v DPP

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Clarke,Ms. Justice Dunne
Judgment Date27 May 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] IESC 36
Docket Number[S.C. Nos. 17 & 18 of 2018],[Appeal No. 17/2018] [Appeal No. 18/2018]
CourtSupreme Court
Date27 May 2019
BETWEEN
GAVIN OWENS
RESPONDENT
AND
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
APPELLANTS
BETWEEN
PATRICK DOOLEY
RESPONDENT
AND
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
APPELLANTS

[2019] IESC 36

[Appeal No. 17/2018]

[Appeal No. 18/2018]

THE SUPREME COURT

Judicial review – Committal warrants – Non-payment of fines – Respondents seeking to quash committal warrants issued against each of them for non-payment of fines – Whether unpaid fines that had been imposed by way of sentence before the coming into force of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 should, after that date, be dealt with under that measure or under the law as it stood at the time of sentence

Facts: The respondents, Mr Owens and Mr Dooley, brought judicial review proceedings seeking to quash committal warrants issued against each of them for non-payment of fines. The High Court in a judgment of the 5th May, 2017 quashed the committal warrants issued against the respondents. They had contended that the provisions of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 were applicable to them notwithstanding that the time for payment of their fines had expired before the commencement of the 2014 Act in circumstances where the committal warrants issued after the commencement of the 2014 Act. The High Court accepted the submissions of the respondents and quashed the committal warrants. The appellants, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and the Minister for Justice and Equality, appealed to the Court of Appeal and that Court dismissed their appeals. The appellants then sought leave to appeal and the Supreme Court in a determination of the 10th April, 2018 granted the appellants leave to appeal in each case in respect of the following issue: whether unpaid fines that had been imposed by way of sentence before the coming into force of the 2014 Act should, after that date, be dealt with under that measure or under the law as it stood at the time of sentence.

Held by the Court that the provisions of s. 22 of the 2014 Act insofar as they insert a new s. 1A are retrospective in effect and are applicable to the respondents. The Court held that the respondents were entitled to avail of the procedures provided for under the 2014 Act in circumstances where the procedure for the collection of fines had been altered significantly by the 2014 Act. The Court noted that the commencement of the 2014 Act took place before any warrant was sought to be issued in the District Court in respect of the default periods of imprisonment provided for. That being so it seemed to the Court that the meaning of s. 1A requires that they be processed as if they had been fined under the 2014 Act. The Court held that no injustice was caused by the retrospective effect of the legislation.

The Court held that the appeal would be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment of Ms. Justice Dunne delivered the 27 day of May 2019
1

The law in relation to the payment and recovery of fines was the subject of significant reform with the enactment of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2014’). The Act of 2014 was commenced on the 11th January, 2016. The Act of 2014 made provision for a court to have regard to a person's financial circumstances when considering the imposition of a fine, provided for the payment of fines by a single payment or by instalments, and provided for a further court hearing in circumstances where there had been a failure to pay the fine or any instalment of the fine. At such hearing, the court concerned is required to consider the fined person's financial circumstances and is obliged either to make a recovery order, an attachment order or a community service order in the event of non-payment of the fine. It is only if the court is satisfied that it would not be appropriate to make such an order that the court may commit a person to prison in default of payment. It will be seen that the thrust of the legislation is to expand the options available for the recovery of fines and to reduce the number of people imprisoned by reason of their default in paying a fine imposed following court proceedings.

The proceedings
2

Mr. Owens and Mr. Dooley (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) brought judicial review proceedings seeking to quash committal warrants issued against each of them for non-payment of fines. The High Court (Eager J.) in a judgment of the 5th May, 2017 quashed the committal warrants issued against the Respondents. They had contended that the provisions of the 2014 Act were applicable to them notwithstanding that the time for payment of their fines had expired before the commencement of the 2014 Act in circumstances where the committal warrants issued after the commencement of the 2014 Act. The High Court accepted the submissions of the Respondents and quashed the committal warrants. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal and that Court dismissed their appeals. The appellants then sought leave to appeal and this Court in a determination of the 10th April, 2018 granted the appellants leave to appeal in each case in respect of the following issue:

‘… whether unpaid fines that had been imposed by way of sentence before the coming into force of the Fines (Payments and Recovery) Act 2014 should, after that date, be dealt with under that measure or under the law as it stood at the time of sentence.’

Background
3

The Respondents had each brought proceedings for judicial review challenging the validity of the committal warrants against them but as can be seen their cases were heard at the same time in the High Court and thereafter, given that the same issue arose for determination in each case. It would be helpful at this point to set out some details of the background in respect of each of the Respondents. Mr. Dooley was convicted on the 22nd July, 2015 of four separate offences contrary to s. 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and was ordered to pay fines of €500 in respect of each of the offences, within a period of ninety days. In accordance with the law then in force, (s. 2 of the Courts (No. 2) Act 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986) he was to be imprisoned for a period of sixty days in default of paying the fine within the time permitted.

4

Mr. Owens was convicted on the 3rd July, 2015 of an offence contrary to s. 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and was sentenced to a fine of €500 to be paid within a period of four months. In his case it was provided that in default of paying the fine he was to be imprisoned for a period of five days.

5

Neither of the Respondents appealed their sentence or challenged the proceedings in which the sentence was imposed. Each of them failed to pay the fine imposed within the periods set by the District Court. In each case the default period had elapsed prior to the commencement of the Act of 2014 on the 11th January, 2016. Committal warrants were issued on the 17th February, 2016 in the case of Mr. Dooley and on the 14th March, 2016 in the case of Mr. Owens. It is not in dispute that had the committal warrants been issued and executed prior to the commencement of the Act of 2014 each of the Respondents would have been liable to imprisonment having regard to the terms of the sentences imposed on them.

Judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal
6

The key issue that had to be determined by the High Court and subsequently in the Court of Appeal was whether the Act of 2014 applied retrospectively or prospectively. The Respondents contended that the Act of 2014 applied retrospectively such that its provisions applied to those sentenced, fined and in default of payment prior to the commencement of the Act while the appellants contended that the Act of 2014, having regard to the presumption against retrospectivity, should be read prospectively. In the course of his judgment the High Court judge stated at para. 27:

‘This Court finds that the State has not explained how a prospective application of the 2014 Act, effectively creating two different processes for those subject to fines before and after the commencement of the 2014 Act, would not lead to unfairness and injustice. Such an application would deprive the present applicants, and society, of the benefits brought about by the 2014 Act. The committal warrants in question issued when the 2014 Act was in force.’

Thus, he was satisfied that it was appropriate to quash the committal warrants.

7

The Court of Appeal (Birmingham J., Mahon J. and HediganJ) in the course of its judgment (delivered by Mahon J.) examined in some detail the legislative history preceding the Act of 2014 in relation to the enforcement of fines. Consideration was given to the purpose behind the Act of 2014 and it was noted at para. 26 of the judgment as follows:

‘The introduction by the legislature of the 2014 Act was primarily prompted by a desire to reduce the extent to which defaulters of fines imposed by the Courts found themselves incarcerated in prison and, usually, in practice, because of prison over-crowding, then being freed almost immediately. The cost and inconvenience for the gardaí and the prison authorities was considered to be needlessly high. The enactment of the 2014 legislation was preceded by an almost unified political and public demand for an alternative system for the collection and enforcement of fines compared to the then existing system which was heavily reliant on imprisonment.’

8

Having examined the terms of the statute itself and having considered the presumption against retrospectivity the Court of Appeal concluded that the changes brought about by the Act of 2014 were procedural in nature and that the Respondents were entitled to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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