O'Rourke v Judges of the District Court and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hedigan, |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] IEHC 309 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 30 June 2009 |
[2009] IEHC 309
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN:
AND
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT 1974
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S56
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S17
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S13
DCR O. 26 r11
BRENNAN v WINDLE & ORS 2003 3 IR 494 2003/6/1243
DUNNE v DPP UNREP CARNEY 6.6.1996 1998/5/1468
BAKOZA v JUDGES OF DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COURT & DPP UNREP PEART 14.7.2004 2004/4/805 2004 IEHC 126
CASEY v GOVERNOR OF CORK PRISON UNREP HERBERT 13.9.2000 2000/4/1309
CRIMINAL LAW
Committal warrants
Re-issued warrants - Delay in executing warrants - Decision to re-issue warrants -- Whether adequate evidence before court to re-issue warrants - Whether all material facts disclosed to trial judge - Efforts made to execute warrants - Whether delay justified - Brennan v Windle [2003] 3 IR 494, Dunne v DPP (Unrep, Carney J, 6/6/1996), Bazoka v Judge Dublin District Court [2004] IEHC 126 (Unrep, Peart J, 14/7/2004 ), Casey v Governor of Cork Prison [2000] IEHC 64 (Unrep, Herbert J, 13/09/00) applied - Road Traffic Act 1961 (No 24), s 56 - Criminal Justice Act 1984 (No 22), s13 - Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (No 50), s 17 - Rules of the District Court 1997 (SI 93/1997), O 26, r 11 - Warrants quashed as invalid (2006/1468 JR - Hedigan J - 30/6/2009) [2009] IEHC 309
O'Rourke v Judges of the District Court
Facts: The applicant, who was facing committal to prison on foot of a number of warrants, which were re-issued and remained outstanding against him, sought an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first respondent to re-issue those warrants on 10 October 2006 and further an injunction restraining the execution of those warrants. One of the warrants related to the imposition of a sentence of 6 months imprisonment imposed in the absence of the applicant on 29 June 2000. The other warrants related to sentences imposed on 25 September 2003 and 13 October 2006. The applicant spent a period of three months in custody in relation to the second set of offences. During 2004, the applicant obtained stable employment, attended a training course and since 2006 he began paying off outstanding road traffic fines. The applicant raised his own enquiries regarding outstanding warrants and subsequently the aforementioned committal warrants were renewed on 10/10/2006. Garda evidence was given regarding efforts to execute the warrants at the applicant’s home address. However, the applicant had been stopped on 9 separate occasions whilst driving and provided an alternative address. No evidence was given of attempts to arrest him at that address.
Held by Hedigan J. in allowing the application: That committal warrants issued on foot of conviction and sentence did not fall within the categories expressly excluded from the terms of Order 26, rule 11. In the present case there was no adequate evidence before the relevant District Judge, upon which he was entitled to re-issue the committal warrants. During the period of over three years delay in executing those warrants, the Gardai’s efforts to apprehend the applicant were confined to sporadic visits to his home address. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that the District Judge was made aware of the behavioural developments which the applicant had undergone. Consequently, the purported re-issuance of the committal warrants was invalid and of no effect. In view of the exceptional circumstances in this case, including the very short time left to serve on the warrants, it would not have been in accordance with natural and constitutional justice to have allowed the re-committal of the application to prison.
Reporter: L.O’S.
The applicant in the present case is facing committal to prison on foot of a number of warrants which, having recently been re-issued are outstanding against him.
The first name respondents have responsibility for the re-issuance of the warrants of execution, pursuant to which it is proposed to commit the applicant to prison.
The second named respondent is the officer at whose behest the application for the re-issuance of the said warrants was made.
The third named respondent is the authority responsible for the prosecution of criminal offences in Ireland. His statutory authority to carry out this function is derived from the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974.
The applicant has over the past number of years been convicted of a number of criminal offences. On the 29 th of June 2000 he was sentenced, in his absence, to 6months imprisonment in respect of an offence contrary to section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, namely driving without insurance. The offence in question occurred on the 31 st of October 1999. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to this as 'the first section 56 sentence'.
On the 25 th of September 2003, he was given sentences of 6 months and 3 months imprisonment respectively for offences contrary to section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, namely handling stolen property, and section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, namely failure to surrender to bail. The offence of handling stolen property had occurred on the 3 rd of February 2003, while the failure to surrender to bail had occurred on the 8 th of August 2003. These two sentences were to run consecutively. I will refer to these as 'the section 17 sentence' and 'the section 13 sentence'.
On the 13 th of October 2006, the applicant was again convicted of an offence contrary to section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and sentenced to 4 months imprisonment. The offence in question had occurred on the 9 th of March 2004. I will call this 'the second section 56 sentence'.
The circumstances surrounding the applicant's committal in respect of these sentences are somewhat unusual. As I have already noted, he was not in court on the 29 th of June 2000 when the first section 56 sentence was handed down. The committal warrant in respect of same was never executed against him nor was he made aware of it.
On the date of the section 17 sentence and the section 13 sentence, the applicant had already spent 3 months in prison since his arrest. When the sentence hearing concluded, the applicant departed from the District Court and returned home. He maintains that he genuinely believed that he was at liberty to do so since no attempts were made to stop him. I would have some reservations as to the veracity of this assertion.
During 2004, the applicant appears to have undergone something of a seachange in his personal development. He obtained stable employment from the 8 thof October 2004 with a security company based in Tallaght. His supervisor has described him as "a very punctual and honest person who had a great working relationship with his fellow colleagues." His supervisor has further expressed a clear desire to re-engage the applicant as soon as he becomes available to work again.
In addition to this employment, the applicant has attended an I.T. training course and demonstrated a considerable aptitude to work with computers. The training administrator of the course in question has spoken highly of the applicant's punctuality, conscientiousness and general demeanour.
The applicant has also made extensive efforts to make amends for the pattern of criminal conduct which existed in his past. Since early 2006, he has been repaying the sum of €100 per week in respect of outstanding fines for road traffic offences committed prior to 2003.
As a further part of the applicant's transformation, and in an unusual move, he wrote during the summer of 2006 directly to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He explained his attempts to turn his life around and sought advice in relation to any warrants which might be in existence against him. The applicant says that his motivation in doing this was to ensure that there were no matters outstanding which might halt his continuing personal development.
The applicant received a response from the office of the Minister, advising him to contact his local Garda station. His letter evidently brought him to the attention of the authorities and on the 4 th of October 2006, efforts were made to execute the outstanding warrants against him. While the applicant was not at home on that date, he directly contacted his local Garda station and was invited to attend to discharge the balance of €700 outstanding on the unpaid fines for the road traffic offences.
On the 9 th of October 2006, the applicant attended at Kevin Street Garda station, bringing with him €700 to satisfy the outstanding balance of the fines. The applicant was then arrested and brought before the Bridewell District Court. After a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckley v Hamill
...In the circumstances, O?Malley J held that it was unnecessary to determine whether?O?Rourke v Judges of the District Court & Ors [2009] IEHC 309?and?Daly v Judge Coughlan?[2006] IEHC 126?are good authority for the proposition that a defendant should be put on notice of an application to ren......
-
William Kiely v DPP
...of serious blameworthy prosecutorial delay. The most recent being that of the High Court in O'Rourke v. Judges of the District Court [2009] IEHC 309 where the commendable reform in the applicant's conduct was considered to be exceptional circumstances, and should have been taken into accoun......