DPP seeks to overturn judge's ruling in drugs case

The Director of Public Prosecutions asked the High Court yesterday to allow five men to be charged with offences linked to a £…

The Director of Public Prosecutions asked the High Court yesterday to allow five men to be charged with offences linked to a £3 million cannabis seizure. Mr Patrick Ralph (33), Village Crescent, Celbridge, Co Kildare; Mr Christopher Burke (26), of Fettercairn, Tallaght and Mr Maurice O'Riordan, Pineview Road, Aylesbury, Tallaght, were represented at yesterday's hearing. But gardai had been unable to serve notice on Mr Eugene Kelly and Mr Michael Maguire.

The DPP last week sought to quash orders of Judge William Early releasing the men on November 18th, and again releasing three on November 20th.

The hearing opened before Mrs Justice McGuinness yesterday and continues today. The judge said the crucial issue was Judge Early's order of November 20th, discharging Mr Ralph, Mr O'Riordan and Mr Burke.

Ms Claire Loftus, of the Chief State Solicitor's office, said gardai had advised that 300kg of cannabis resin was found at a house at Pineview Road, Aylesbury, Tallaght, Co Dublin, on November 13th and that the five men were arrested on the same day under the Misuse of Drugs Act and detained under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996.

READ MORE

She said the men's detention was extended initially for 18 hours and then for a further 24 hours. District Judge Desmond Windle had then, on November 15th, extended their detention for another 72 hours. She said gardai believed Judge Windle could hear such an application but became aware on November 18th that only Judge Thelma King could do so. Instructions were given to release the men and to re-arrest them under the Misuse of Drugs Act to charge them and bring them before a court.

She said it was not intended to detain them under the Criminal Justice (DT) Act. The men were freed on November 18th, re-arrested and charged. Ms Loftus said the men were brought before Judge Early. It was submitted that, because of the Act, a person detained under Section 2 and released without charge could not be arrested in order to be charged and brought before a court unless further information on an offence was supplied on oath. Judge Early had ruled the arrests of the five men were unlawful and they were released.

Ms Loftus said she had applied to Judge King on November 19th for five arrest warrants and these were issued. All three men appeared before Judge Early who discharged them.

Counsel for the DPP, Mr Diarmaid McGuinness SC, said Judge Early had wrongfully declined jurisdiction regarding the charges to be brought against the men and wrongfully refused to proceed with the prosecution.

He said Judge Early acted in excess of jurisdiction in deciding the men could not be arrested to be charged and in deciding that Judge King could not issue arrest warrants.

Mr McGuinness said the judge could remand the accused and that the purpose of the arrests was to charge them and have them brought before a court.

Mr Christopher Burke, in his notice of opposition, admitted the DPP was entitled to an order compelling Judge Early to charge or permit the charging of the men in the District Court and to proceed with the prosecution.

But Mr Burke was objecting to any orders quashing Judge Early's decisions on November 18th and 20th. Regarding the former, he submitted if the judge had erred, he did so within jurisdiction.

On the November 20th order, Mr Burke submitted that if Judge Early erred here, he did so within jurisdiction.