JOURNALIST Mr Eamon Dunphy has begun a Supreme Court case over a warrant issued for his arrest for driving offences. He is challenging an earlier High Court dismissal of a challenge to a district justice's decision to issue the warrant. The Supreme Court reserved judgment.
When judgment was given in the High Court on January 13th, 1994, it was stated that it would be appealed and that the warrant would not operate if the appeal was lodged within 14 days.
Mr Justice Barr was told in the High Court that Mr Dunphy had not been present at Dublin District Court in May 1993 to answer summonses relating to alleged motoring offences. They included summonses for allegedly driving without road tax and insurance.
The judge heard that Mr Dunphy was represented by a solicitor at the District Court. On the date of the District Court trial, Mr Dunphy had telephoned his solicitor and said he was seeking an adjournment to allow him time to locate documentation. The solicitor applied for an adjournment.
District Judge Timothy Crowley issued a bench warrant for Mr Dunphy's arrest because of his non appearance.
In an affidavit, Mr Dunphy said he instructed Ferrys solicitors, as his legal advisers for the case on May 28th, 1993, and asked them to represent him.
He again contacted Ferrys on May 31st, 1993, at about 9.30 a.m. He advised them that he would be unable to attend court that day and that they should seek an adjournment to allow him time to locate relevant documentation.
He made a number of attempts to contact the prosecuting garda to ask to have the matter adjourned but to no avail.
Mr Dunphy added that he was informed that Mr Patrick McGonagle, a solicitor with Ferrys, attended the District Court for the case, which came before Judge Crowley at about 3.30 p.m.
His solicitor applied for an adjournment and having related the reasons to the court, the judge inquired as to whether he (Mr Dunphy) was present. The solicitor informed the judge that he was not present in court as he was down the country and apologised on his behalf for his absence. The judge then issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
Judge Crowley and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in their grounds of opposition to Mr Dunphy's application, say the order made by the judge on May 31st, 1993, was within jurisdiction. The judge, it is submitted, was entitled to issue a warrant to arrest Mr Dunphy when he failed to appear in answer to a summons served on him.
The High Court decided that in the circumstances Judge Crowley was fully entitled to exercise the power granted to him by Rule 40 of District Court Rules to issue a warrant for Mr Dunphy's arrest and thus ensure his personal attendance in court to answer the various complaints.
The course adopted by Judge Crowley did not inhibit Mr Dunphy in making whatever defence he wished to rely upon in answer to the various complaints. It merely ensured his attendance in court after arrest.
Yesterday, Mr Patrick Gageby SC, for Mr Dunphy, said that if in a case a solicitor who was instructed went into court, and said he was appearing and made an application for an adjournment, then there had been "an appearance
Mr Gageby said his client did not "fail to appear". He had appeared by his solicitor. A complaint could be heard in the absence of an accused person and clearly this could be done if his solicitor or assistant was present. The attendance of an accused person was not required.
Ms Adrienne Egan, counsel for the district judge and the DPP, asked where it was stated that an appearance by a solicitor or counsel absolved a defendant from appearing.
Where a summons was issued requiring the attendance of a defendant in court and he failed to appear, the judge was empowered to issue a warrant for his arrest. It was the State which was requiring the person to answer a criminal offence and it was not up to a defendant to say he could not attend.