Redmond v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger
• Judgment Date: 14 March 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] IEHC 150
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2021/922 JR]

Between

Darren Redmond

Applicant

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions and The Superintendant of Bridewell Garda Station

Respondents

[2024] IEHC 150

[Record No. 2021/922 JR]

THE HIGH COURT

Counsel for the applicant: Michael O'Higgins SC, Kevin Roche BL

Counsel for the respondents: Oisín Clarke BL

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger delivered on the 14 ^th day of March 2024

1 . This is an application for judicial review, including declaratory and injunctive relief, arising from a suspended prison sentence of one month that was imposed on the applicant. For the reasons set out below, I am granting judicial review.

Background

2 . The applicant was charged with criminal damage. He pleaded not guilty and at a hearing before the District Court on 20 October 2021, he was convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment, which was suspended pursuant to s. 99(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2006 Act’). The DAR of the hearing confirms the decision of the District Judge and his statement “I will fix recognisance in his own bond, €500, lodge 100 cash”. The Judge concluded the hearing by saying “[h]e needs to sign his bond”. Later that day, it emerged that the applicant had left the courthouse without signing the bond and the Judge stated “[w]ell, if he doesn't sign it, he's to be incarcerated”. The applicant's solicitor explained that the applicant had left before his solicitor could speak to him to advise him about signing the bond, to which the Judge said, “I told him on his way out of the court he'd need to sign the bond”. The Judge refused the solicitor's application to remand the matter to the next day in order to allow the applicant to enter into the bond but did allow the solicitor to apply to him later that day as he was sitting in the evening court. The applicant did not attend that evening because his solicitor was unable to contact him until later that night, by which time, evening court had ended. The applicant attended court the following day, but the District Judge said he was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to deal with what he referred to as “yesterday's case”. The applicant was purportedly taken into custody, but the Prison Service said they could not detain him as there was no committal warrant.

3 . The issue for this Court is summarised by the applicant's written submissions as follows:

“The central issue to be determined therefore is whether a Committal Warrant will issue by default where a recognisance is not entered into in accordance with s.99(1) and whether the District Judge was indeed functus officio as a result. It is respectfully submitted by the applicant that no Committal Warrant had issued, and the District Judge did entertain a jurisdiction to allow him to enter into his recognisance.”

4 . The respondents say that the applicant was aware, when he left the court, that he was to sign a bond having been specifically informed of that by the Judge and that the Judge allowed him to return that day in order to do so. In those circumstances, they said the Judge was within jurisdiction to determine that the applicant had deliberately sought to frustrate the court order and was not going to sign the bond. They say the Judge had made the order to issue the committal warrant which, for some reason, was not drawn up, but this does not invalidate the order which was a final one made within jurisdiction. They submit that this Court should defer to a lower court's management of its list once its decision was proportionate, as the respondents said it was in this case.

Legal provisions

5 . Sections 99(1), 99(3) and 99(13A) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 provide:

“99. Power to suspend sentence

(1) Where a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment (other than a mandatory term of imprisonment) by a court in respect of an offence, that court may make an order suspending the execution of the sentence in whole or in part, subject to the person entering into a recognisance to comply with the conditions of, or imposed in relation to, the order…

(3) The court may, when making an order under subsection (1), impose such conditions in relation to the order as the court considers—

(a) appropriate having regard to the nature of the offence, and

(b) will reduce the likelihood of the person in respect of whom the order is made committing any other offence,

and any condition imposed in accordance with this subsection shall be specified in that order…

[(13A) The Director of Public Prosecutions may, if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that a person to whom an order under subsection (1) applies has contravened a condition imposed under subsection (3), apply to the court to fix a date for the hearing of an application for an order revoking the order under subsection (1).]”

Orders 25(3) and 28A(2) of the District Court Rules provide:

“Order 25

3. Where the Court, upon imposing sentence of imprisonment, conditionally suspends the execution thereof, it may, upon the application of the prosecutor, issue a warrant of committal (Form 25.8, Schedule B) on being satisfied of the failure of the accused to comply with the terms upon which the said sentence was suspended.”

“Order 28A

2. Where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and the Court makes an order under section 99(1) of the Act suspending the execution of the sentence in...