Stokes v The Courts Service and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan
• Judgment Date: 03 November 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] IEHC 602
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [Record No.: 2021/568 JR]

Between:

John Stokes

Plaintiff

and

The Courts Service and The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and The Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondents

[2023] IEHC 602

[Record No.: 2021/568 JR]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan, delivered on the 3 ^rd day of November, 2023

INTRODUCTION

1 . The Applicant was convicted, sentenced and fined after a criminal process in 2016. In these proceedings he complains that because of delay in the conclusion of enforcement procedures pursuant to the provisions of Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act, 2014 [hereinafter “the 2014 Act”], it would be unfair, invidious, or oppressive to expose him to risk of sanction now, including a potential custodial sentence, for non-payment of the fines imposed and due for payment more than seven years ago. The Applicant maintains that prejudice or unfairness arises from this delay because a sanction for non-payment of the fines might have been dealt with by a custodial sentence in lieu of the fines had enforcement proceedings been pursued more swiftly without any requirement for the Applicant to serve further time in custody, whereas a term of imprisonment would be prejudicial at this stage. This is because the Applicant was in custody on an unrelated matter between 2016 and 2019 and it would have been open to the District Court to order a term of imprisonment for non-payment of the fines which could then have been “ run in” or made concurrent with a custodial sentence he was serving anyway had the enforcement process been pursued in a timely manner.

2 . It is accepted on behalf of the Respondents that there was delay both in the issue of the enforcement Fines Notice and the execution of a subsequent arrest warrant, but they nonetheless contend that the fines enforcement process should be allowed to continue. It is disputed that delay caused the Applicant any actionable prejudice or was of such a magnitude as to render the process unjust, invidious, or oppressive thereby requiring that further action for non-payment of a court ordered fine be restrained in judicial review proceedings.

BACKGROUND

3 . The Applicant was convicted on the 3 ^rd of February, 2016 in the District Court of various road traffic related dating to dates in 2014 and 2015 [see further full Chronology at Appendix 1 hereto]. Three of the convictions were for driving without insurance (S.56 Road Traffic Act 1961) on three separate occasions. Although ‘driving without insurance’ is an offence which may often justify a custodial penalty, and notwithstanding the fact that the offences spanned three distinct occurrences, the District Court dealt with them by way of a fine only. The Applicant was fined a total of €1,700 (broken down into smaller constituent fines in respect of each offence) which was due to be paid in full by the 1 ^st of August, 2016. The Applicant was, however, committed to custody for 5 ¹/₂ years with 18 months suspended in respect of an unrelated Circuit Court matter on 23 ^rd of February, 2016. While he was granted temporary release on the 14 ^th of March, 2019, he was not fully released until 6 ^th of April, 2019.

4 . On the 16th of January, 2018, a notice issued requiring the Applicant to attend before the District Court on the 11 ^th of April, 2018 concerning the non-payment of the fines dating back to 2016. A warrant for his arrest, as “a fined person” issued on the 11 ^th of April, 2018 when he did not attend court. The Applicant was in fact still in custody at that time on the unrelated matter having been transferred from Mountjoy Prison to Cork Prison in February, 2016 and from Cork Prison to Shelton Abbey Place of Detention in March, 2018. The said warrant was only executed by arrangement at the District Court sitting at Dún Laoghaire on 25 ^th of February, 2021, two years, and ten months after the date of the issuance of the warrant.

5 . Although the Applicant was in custody when the arrest warrant issued in April, 2018, it is not disputed that the Applicant provided his address to the prison authorities upon his release in April, 2019. The Applicant moved from Dublin to Wexford prior to his sentencing on the original offences in 2016 (as recorded on the transcript of proceedings before the District Court). The address provided to the Irish Prison Service when released from Shelton Abbey was an address in Wexford. It is not disputed that he remained at this Wexford address until November, 2020 when he and his partner obtained social housing at an address in Dún Laoghaire, Co. Dublin where they have remained since.

6 . On the occasion of the execution of the arrest warrant before the District Court in February, 2021 the Applicant was represented by counsel. The case was adjourned to District Court No. 2 in the Criminal Courts of Justice on 24 ^th of March, 2021 when the Applicant applied through his solicitor to the presiding District Judge for the proceedings to be struck out on the basis of delay. It was submitted that the Applicant had been in custody when the warrant had issued and had the warrant been executed sooner, the Applicant would have had the opportunity to have a sentence imposed in lieu of the fines which would have been concurrent with the sentence then being served by him.

7 . The District Judge (His Honour Judge Hughes) referred to the decision in DPP v Fogarty [2019] IEHC 308 regarding the power of the Court to strike out the proceedings. The District Court Judge refused to strike the matter out stating that the Court could not predict what would have happened had the warrants been executed sooner and that accordingly it was not established that the Applicant had been prejudiced. The application for a strike out having been refused, the Court proceeded to consider a Community Service Order in accordance with s. 7(5)(a)(ii) of the 2014 Act. The case was adjourned to 16 ^th of June, 2021 for a report to assess the Applicant's suitability for Community Service. On that date, the Court was informed of the intention to proceed by way of judicial review. The enforcement proceedings now stand adjourned pending the determination of the within proceedings.

PROCEEDINGS

8 . The Applicant obtained leave ex parte (Meenan J.) on the 21 ^st of June, 2021 to seek the following relief:

• 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 Distract 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.

9 . A stay on the further prosecution of the District Court proceedings was granted with liberty to the Respondents to apply on 48 hours' notice to vary or remove the stay.

10 . In March, 2022, a Statement of Opposition was delivered on behalf of the Second and Third Named Respondents (hereinafter “An Garda Síochána” and “the Minister”) inviting the Court to refuse relief on discretionary grounds. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the core of this application is a claim made that the Applicant might have avoided fines imposed in a constitutionally fair process following a lawful conviction and sentencing but for the delay in enforcement procedures. In essence, he seeks to rely on the fact that he might have avoided the consequences of non-payment of the fines lawfully imposed altogether had a custodial sentence been imposed while he was serving time in custody on an unrelated matter but for the delay in enforcement proceedings. The application is further opposed, inter alia, on the basis that it is speculative to suggest that a period of custody arising from the enforcement proceedings could have been “ run in” or made concurrent with the custodial sentence he was already serving as a period in custody. Furthermore, emphasis is placed on the fact that a custodial sentence for non-payment of fines is an exceptional measure of last resort and no such sentence may be imposed. It is simultaneously contended that the Applicant should be debarred by reason of delay in commencing proceedings more than three months after the execution of the arrest warrant and should be refused relief by reason of prematurity in proceeding before the District Judge made an order pursuant to s. 7 of the 2014 Act.

11 . The Court Services delivered its Statement of Opposition in May, 2022 wherein reliance was placed on the fact that the statutory role of the Courts Service and the nature of its functions under the 2014 Act. Like An Garda Síochána and the Minister, the Court Service contends that while there was some delay in the execution of its functions under the 2014 Act, much of which was caused by the introduction of the new system for the enforcement of fines, this delay did not cause the Applicant any actionable prejudice or was of not of such a magnitude as to make unenforceable an otherwise enforceable default in the payment of a court ordered fine. It is further pointed out that the Court Service is not...