Rice v Mangan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2004 |
| Date | 30 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | [2004 No. 192 |
| Court | High Court |
High Court
Cases mentioned in this report:-
Buckley v. Kirby [2000] 3 I.R. 431; [2001] 2 I.L.R.M. 395.
The State (Roche) v. Delap [1980] I.R. 170.
Criminal law - Bail - Fair procedures - Exclusion from place - Additional bail condition imposed by District Judge on his own motion without prior notice to accused - Whether District Judge had jurisdiction to impose additional bail conditions - Whether fair procedures followed - Whether entire county place within meaning of Bail Act - Criminal Procedure Act 1967 (No. 12), ss. 22 and 23 - Bail Act 1997 (No. 16), s. 6(1)(b)(iv).
Judicial review
The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are more fully set out in the judgment of O Néill J., infra.
On the 8th March, 2004, the applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review by the High Court (Herbert J.) for, inter alia, an order ofcertiorari quashing the order of the respondent dated the 12th February, 2004, to vary the applicant's bail so as to impose a complete exclusion from the county of Clare on him or alternatively to commit the applicant to prison for his refusal to undertake not to enter the county of Clare.
The application for judicial review was heard by the High Court (O Néill J.) on the 8th July, 2004.
The applicant appeared before the respondent charged with public order offences and was released on bail. At a subsequent court appearance when the applicant was not legally represented, the respondent of his own initiative sought to impose an additional bail condition that the applicant stay out of the county of Clare. When the applicant protested the imposition of this condition, the respondent revoked his bail and committed him to prison.
The applicant applied for, inter alia, judicial review of the decision of the respondent and an order of habeas corpusand was granted bail in these proceedings by the High Court (Herbert J.).
Held by the High Court (O Néill J.), in refusing to grant the relief sought, 1, that while a District Judge could alter bail conditions or revoke bail where no such application had been made, this could rarely be done without prior notice to the accused.
2. That as the applicant had successfully appealed the first respondent's order to the High Court, the relief sought was superfluous.
3. That a condition of bail to exclude a person from an entire county might properly be imposed.
Cur. adv. vult.
| O Néill J. | 30th July, 2004 |
[1] In these proceedings the applicant challenges by way of judicial review the order of the respondent made on the 12th February, 2004, whereby the respondent either varied the applicant's bail terms so as to impose a complete exclusion from the county of Clare on him or alternatively committed the applicant to prison for his refusal to indicate compliance or undertake not to enter the county of Clare. Leave was granted to the applicant to pursue relief by way of judicial review including an order ofcertiorari of the foregoing order of the respondent by order of Herbert J. dated the 8th March, 2004.
Factual background
[2] The undisputed averments in the affidavit of the applicant sworn on the 15th March, 2004, reveal as follows:-
The applicant was arrested on the 6th December, 2003, by members of An Garda Síochána and charged with the offences of dangerous driving and obstruction of a garda under s. 19 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. He was brought before the District Court at Tulla in County Clare which was due to sit at 7 p.m. He had arranged for legal representation for that time. The applicant had arrived earlier in garda custody. The respondent decided to sit at an earlier time when the applicant's solicitor was not present, to which the applicant objected. Nevertheless the respondent proceeded and the applicant was released on bail of EUR5 without any conditions attached and was remanded to Ennis District Court on the 18th December, 2003.
[3] On the 7th December, 2003, the applicant was arrested by members of An Garda Síochána and released without charge.
[4] On the 18th December, 2003, at Ennis District Court the applicant was charged with public order offences including further offences under s. 19 of the Act of 1994. On that occasion the bail granted to him on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devoy v Governor of the Dochas Centre Mountjoy Prison
...[2007] IEHC 121, [2007] 2 I.L.R.M. 371. Howard v. Early (Unreported, Supreme Court, 4th July, 2000). Rice v. Mangan [2004] IEHC 258, [2009] 3 I.R. 1. Criminal law - Bail - District Court - Sentencing - Remand in custody - Fair procedures - Whether remand in custody pending sentencing amount......
-
The Minister for Justice and Equality v T.M.
...of the Act of 1997 refer to payment of moneys into court and conditions of bail. Counsel also referred to the case of Rice v. Mangan [2009] 3 IR 1 which indicates that a judge can, of his or her own motion, revoke bail or impose conditions on to bail where they have not been sought by the p......
-
Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison
...to react to an established breach of bail condition mirrors the common law position, as described by ÓNeill J in Rice v. Judge Mangan [2009] 3 IR 1. . . . : "[21] I would not agree with this submission of the applicant. There is nothing in my view either in ss. 22 or 23 of the Criminal Proc......
-
Leroy Roche aka Dumbrell v Governor of Cloverhill Prison
...BAIL ACT 1997 S9(1)(B)(IV) MAGUIRE v DPP 2004 3 IR 241 2005 1 ILRM 53 2004/29/6791 2004 IESC 53 BAIL ACT 1997 S2(2) RICE v JUDGE MANGAN & 2009 3 IR 1 2004 IEHC 258 Bail – Conditions – Variation – Breach – Revocation – Constitutional Law – Bunreacht na hÉireann 1937 Article 40 – Bail Act 19......