Stokes v The Courts Service and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McCarthy J,MacGrath J
• Judgment Date: 11 February 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 27
• Docket Number: Record No: 324/2023
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Between/

John stokes

Appellant

and

The Courts Service

and

The Commissioner of an Garda Síochána

and

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondents

[2025] IECA 27

Edwards J.

McCarthy J.

MacGrath J.

Record No: 324/2023

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Judicial review – Enforcement – Delay – Appellant seeking judicial review – Whether the appellant’s rights had been breached by the enforcement process that was in being

Facts: The appellant, Mr Stokes, appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the High Court delivered by Phelan J on 3 November 2023 ([2023] IEHC 602). The Judge refused to grant judicial review for declaratory reliefs and an order of prohibition prohibiting the further prosecution of the process of enforcement and recovery under s. 7 of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014, in respect of fines imposed on the appellant by the District Court on 3 February 2016. The appellant submitted that the Judge erred in: (1) determining that the delay found to be caused entirely by the respondents, the Courts Service, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and the Minister for Justice and Equality, and to be unacceptable, inordinate and excessive and for which there was no adequate explanation did not render the continuation of the enforcement process unfair and/or in breach of the appellant’s constitutional right to fair procedures and/or unjust, oppressive and/or invidious and/or in breach of the appellant’s right to private and family life pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; (2) distinguishing the case from Finnegan v Superintendent of Tallaght Garda Station and Governor of Wheatfield Prison [2021] 1 ILRM 206; (3) failing to have sufficient regard to the crimes in respect of which the appellant was convicted, the sentence imposed, the manner in which the respondents conducted themselves in the process complained of, the lack of culpability on the part of the appellant in relation to the delay and the fact that the appellant’s location and presence was known at all material times to the respondents; (4) considering that what was required was an “inevitability” of a “return to prison or the imposition of a manifestly unfair or disproportionate penalty” prior to intervening by way of judicial review; (5) finding that it was premature to seek relief by way of judicial review; (6) considering that the public interest in Court ordered sanctions being respected outweighed the appellant’s individual circumstances in the context of the excessive delay; and (7) awarding costs to the respondents.

Held by Edwards J that the appellant must be afforded the opportunity of contending that continuation of the enforcement proceedings against him would be oppressive on account of delay, and of receiving a judicial determination on that issue. However, if, as Edwards J believed the High Court judge correctly determined to be the case, there remained an ongoing adjudicative process before the District Court, then that was the appropriate forum before which the appellant should make any such argument. Edwards J held that the circumstances of the case were distinguishable from those in Finnegan. He held that this was not an appropriate case in which to grant relief by way of judicial review. He found that the High Court engaged in a meticulous analysis of the issues raised in the litigation. He agreed entirely with the Judge’s analysis and found no error in her approach.

Edwards J dismissed the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

APPROVED JUDGMENT

NO REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT delivered by Mr. Justice Edwards on the 11th day of February, 2025.

Introduction

1 The present appeal has been brought by Mr. John Stokes (i.e., “the appellant”) against the judgment of the High Court delivered by Phelan J. on the 3 ^rd of November 2023 (bearing the neutral citation of [2023] IEHC 602), the order being perfected on the 4 ^th of December 2023.

2 The said Judge refused to grant judicial review for the following reliefs:

• i. “An Order of Prohibition by way of an application for Judicial Review prohibiting the further prosecution of the process of enforcement and recovery under Section 7 of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014, in respect of fines imposed on the applicant by the District Court on 3 ^rd of February, 2016;

• ii. A Declaration by way of an application for Judicial Review that the prosecution of the said process in respect of the applicant is in breach of the applicant's constitutional right to fair procedures;

• iii. A Declaration by way of an application for Judicial Review that the prosecution of the said process in respect of the applicant is unjust, oppressive and/or invidious by reason of delay;

• iv. A Declaration by way of an application for Judicial Review that the respondents acted in breach of their duty to prosecute the said process in respect of the applicant in a timely manner;

• v. A Declaration by way of an application for Judicial Review that the prosecution of the said process in respect of the applicant is in breach of the applicant's right to private and family life pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”

Background

3 On the 3 ^rd of February 2016, the appellant was convicted in the District Court of a number of road traffic related offences committed on dates in 2014 and 2015. Three of the convictions were for driving without insurance, contrary to s. 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, on three separate occasions. A number of fines were imposed on the appellant totalling €1,700, which were due to be paid in full by the 1 ^st of August 2016. However, on the 23 ^rd of February 2016, the appellant was committed to custody for 5 ¹/₂ years' imprisonment with the final 18 months suspended in respect of an unrelated Circuit Court matter. The 1 ^st of August 2016 came and went, the appellant being in prison on the unrelated matter on the date in question, and for a considerable time in the lead up to that date, and indeed thereafter, and the fines were never paid. Whilst he was granted temporary release on the 14 ^th of March 2019, he was not fully released until the 6 ^th of April 2019. The fines remained unpaid following his eventual release and the appellant took no steps to attempt to pay them.

4 On the 16 ^th of January 2018, a Notice pursuant to s. 7(4) of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 (“the Act of 2014”) issued addressed to the appellant requiring him to attend before the District Court on the 11 ^th of April 2018 concerning the non-payment of the said fines due by him. A warrant for his arrest, as a ‘fined person’ who had failed to appear, was then issued on the 11 ^th of April 2018 when the appellant failed to attend court. The appellant was in fact still detained in custody serving the unrelated sentence. The said warrant, which was still outstanding, and which had never been withdrawn or cancelled, was very much later executed by arrangement at the District Court sitting at Dún Laoghaire on the 25 ^th of February 2021, some two years and ten months indeed after it had been issued.

5 The appellant had provided the authorities in Shelton Abbey with his address in Courtown, Co. Wexford at the time that he obtained temporary release in March 2019, and he had remained at that address until approximately November 2020 when he moved with his partner to an address at Rochestown Avenue in Dún Laoghaire where he has resided since. The High Court judge found that the appellant had lived openly following his release and did not attempt to conceal his whereabouts or evade service of the warrant and in fact had engaged with various State authorities during the relevant period, including with the Department of Social Protection from whom he was claiming Jobseekers' Allowance.

6 As stated, on the 25 ^th of February 2021, the warrant was ultimately executed by arrangement at Dun Laoghaire District Court and the appellant was represented by counsel on this occasion. The case was adjourned to the 24 ^th of March 2021 to District Court No. 2 in the Criminal Courts of Justice, where the appellant applied through his solicitor to the presiding judge for the proceedings to be struck out on grounds of delay. It was submitted that the appellant had been in custody when the arrest warrant had issued and had the warrant been executed sooner, the appellant would have had the opportunity to have a sentence imposed in lieu of payment of the outstanding fines which would have run concurrently with the sentence then being served by him. The District Court judge referred to the decision in DPP v. Fogarty [2019] IEHC 308 regarding the power of the Court to strike out the proceedings and declined to do so, adding that the appellant had been present in Court on the date of the imposition of the fines and was aware of the Order and had not appealed it. As the High Court judge in this matter has since pointed out, the transcript record of the proceedings before the District judge (which was exhibited), properly interpreted, points to the District Court judge declining to strike out the proceedings not on the basis that he lacked any jurisdiction at all to do so, but rather that he could not do so at that point, and without first considering the enforcement options open to him. The District Court judge also stated that the Court could not predict what might have happened had the warrant been executed sooner and that, accordingly, it was not established that the appellant had been prejudiced. The District Court judge then indicated that he would consider a Community Service Order in accordance with s. 7(5)(a)(ii) of the Act of 2014. His solicitor confirmed to the District Court judge that the appellant was willing to complete community service if eligible.

7 To determine if the appellant's case was a suitable case in which a Community Service Order might be made, the case...