The High Court directed the release of Georghe Cirpaci after finding that his conviction by the District Court was made without jurisdiction. The court held that he had not been informed of his statutory right to elect trial by jury before the charge was tried summarily, making his continued detention unlawful.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the judgment on 25 February 2014 in an application under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, which provides for an inquiry into the legality of a person’s detention. Cirpaci had been arrested on 10 December 2013 and charged with theft under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. The Director of Public Prosecutions consented to summary disposal, and the District Court accepted jurisdiction on the basis that the offence was minor.
The District Court heard the case on 28 January 2014, convicted Cirpaci and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. He was legally represented throughout, but the judgment records that the District Court never informed him of his right to elect for jury trial. The committal warrant stated that he had been informed of that right; the respondent accepted that recital was erroneous.
The respondent argued that the error did not invalidate the warrant and submitted that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in FX v Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital, Article 40.4.2 proceedings were generally available after conviction only where the warrant was invalid on its face. The applicant argued that he could choose the constitutional remedy, which required an immediate inquiry, rather than seek judicial review to quash the conviction.
Justice Hogan rejected the respondent’s proposed limit on the constitutional remedy. He said Article 40.4.2 permits the High Court to examine the underlying legality of detention, including where a warrant appears regular on its face, and that the jurisdiction extends to fundamental defects. He relied on prior decisions holding that informing an accused of the right to jury trial is a statutory condition for the District Court to try an indictable offence summarily.
The court concluded that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because Cirpaci had not been afforded that right. It held that an appeal would not cure the defect, since it would not provide the jury-trial election he had been denied. The judgment therefore found his detention was not in accordance with law and directed his release under Article 40.4.2. It did not quash the conviction through judicial review.