O’Rourke -v- Judges of the District Court Ors
High Court
Judgment was delivered on June 30th by Mr Justice Hedigan
Judgment
There was not adequate evidence before the District Judge in this case to justify the re-issuing of committal warrants, for which there was a three-year delay. The judge was also not made aware of all the material facts, in particular the striking efforts of the applicant to turn his life around, which was an exceptional circumstance that should have been brought to his attention.
Background
The applicant was facing committal to prison on foot of a number of warrants which had been re-issued. They had originally been issued in 2000 and 2006.
He had been convicted of a number of offences between 2000 and 2006, including driving without insurance, handling stolen property and failure to surrender to bail.
The most recent offence, a road traffic offence, occurred on March 9th, 2004.
He was not in court in June 2000 when a six-month sentence was handed down for driving without insurance, the committal warrant was never executed against him and he was never made aware of it.
When two concurrent sentences of six and three months were handed down in September 2003 in relation to the bail and stolen property offences, he had already spent three months in prison awaiting trial, and after the hearing he returned home, with no attempt made to stop him.
In 2004, he underwent a “sea change” in his personal development, having obtained employment with a security company in Tallaght and embarking on an IT training course.
Both his employer and the training administrator praised his punctuality, conscientiousness, honesty and other good qualities.
He made extensive efforts to make amends for his earlier criminal conduct, repaying €100 per week for fines for road traffic offences committed prior to 2003.
He also wrote to the Minister for Justice in 2006 explaining his efforts to turn his life around and seeking advice in relation to any warrants that might be in existence against him.
He was advised to contact his local Garda station, which he did.
He was invited to attend to discharge the balance of €700 owed in fines, and on October 9th, 2006 he attended at Kevin Street Garda station with the €700.
He was arrested and brought to Bridewell District Court, where he was charged with driving without insurance in 2004. He pleaded guilty and received the second sentence for a road traffic offence, and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.
In the meantime, he was served with the outstanding committal warrants in relation to the 2000 sentence and the 2003 offences. They had been renewed intermittently, most recently by District Judge Martin on October 10th, 2006.
At that hearing, the Garda said the applicant did not live with his mother at the address he had provided in 2003, so he had been unable to execute the warrants. His mother denied this.
Independently, the applicant was stopped on nine separate occasions and gave another address.
There was no evidence that the gardaí had tried to contact him at this address.
He served 10 weeks of the four months’ sentence when he was released by the High Court on bail on foot of these judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash the decision of the District Court to reissue the warrants.
In submissions made on his behalf, it was stated that no serious effort had been made by the gardaí to locate him prior to October 9th, 2006, and that in failing to execute the warrants prior to this date, they were guilty of unconscionable delay.
Decision
Before stating his decision, Mr Justice Hedigan said that the amount of time remaining to be served on all warrants was five weeks.
Turning to the question of the warrants, he said that the District Court must be satisfied that there are adequate reasons to re-issue a warrant that had not been executed. A warrant was a command issued to the gardaí by a court to bring a named person before that court. It was not merely an authority or permission.
Referring to the obligations on the gardaí in seeking to execute a warrant, he quoted Mr Justice Peart in Bakoza -v- Dublin Metropolitan District Court, when he said: “There must be a middle ground short of a national manhunt but in excess of a few unsuccessful knocks on the door.”
Referring to the Garda claim that the applicant was not resident at the address he had given, he said that the delay in executing the warrants was over three years in duration, and the efforts to apprehend the applicant were confined to sporadic visits to his home address.
However, he was stopped while driving on no less than nine separation occasions and no effort was made to arrest him, nor were efforts made to confront him at the alternative address he had given.
He said he was not satisfied there was adequate evidence before District Judge Martin on which he was entitled to re-issue the committal warrants.
In addition, he was not apprised of all the material facts, in particular the striking behavioural development of the applicant. Had he been, it was entirely possible he would have refused to reissue the warrants.
Therefore, the purported reissuing of the warrants on October 10th was invalid, and, in view of the exceptional circumstances, including the very short time left on them, it would not be in accord with the principles of natural and constitutional justice to recommit the applicant to prison.
The full judgment in on www.courts.ie
Giollaiosa Ó Lideadha SC, Eoin Cole BL, instructed by Philip Hannon solicitors, for the applicant; Michael P O’Higgins SC, for the DPP