The Supreme Court ordered Colm Maguire’s release on bail after concluding that the interests of justice required it, given that the State could not provide him with a trial until June 2005. The Court allowed his appeal from a High Court refusal of bail, while stressing that its decision had limited precedential value and expressing no concluded view on whether the proposed trial date was within a reasonable time.
Maguire had been charged before the Special Criminal Court on 10 October 2003 with membership of an unlawful organisation, contrary to section 21 of the Offences Against the State Act, as amended. The prosecution initially opposed bail on flight-risk grounds and on the basis that detention was reasonably considered necessary to prevent a serious offence under section 2 of the Bail Act 1997. It later dropped the flight-risk objection. Maguire remained in custody, apart from a few days’ compassionate bail in July 2004.
After four months had passed without his trial beginning, Maguire applied to the High Court under section 3 of the 1997 Act. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the four-month period was enough to trigger consideration of the interests of justice, and that the High Court could consider the expected time to trial regardless of who caused the delay, provided the delay was not Maguire’s. It sent the application back for reconsideration under the correct interpretation of sections 2 and 3.
On remittal, the High Court heard evidence from Detective Superintendent O’Sullivan and Maguire, then refused bail. The judge relied on the superintendent’s unchallenged sworn evidence that he believed Maguire was a member of an unlawful organisation. The Supreme Court said the brief ruling did not adequately address the section 3 application or the interests-of-justice question, including the time Maguire would wait for trial.
The Supreme Court considered whether to remit the case again, but decided to determine the appeal itself rather than prolong the detention of an untried defendant who had already spent more than a year in custody. It noted that a trial in a relatively simple case, with the Book of Evidence served long before, could not be called speedy if it took place only after 20 months. It also considered that Maguire had been granted bail on associated firearms charges, had no previous convictions on the evidence before the Court, and otherwise faced custody amounting to the equivalent of a two-year sentence before trial.
The Court held that the interests of justice required bail on the materials before it. It did not decide whether a trial after 20 months in custody would be within a reasonable time, noting that the Director’s counsel had not been instructed fully to argue that issue.