The High Court dismissed a judicial review application challenging the re-entry of charges against an applicant who had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentence. It also rejected his challenge to being remanded on continuing bail “without prejudice”.
The applicant had pleaded guilty to three charges and was due to be sentenced in the District Court in December 2015. After several adjournments, he was on continuing bail until 8 February 2016, when he failed to attend. Because the court file contained no bail recognisance appended to the charge sheets, the District Judge made no order on the charges.
On 4 March 2016, gardaí sought to re-enter those charges while the applicant was before the District Court on other matters. His solicitor objected, but the judge reinstated the charges and said submissions could be heard on the procedure. The High Court judgment noted that the District Court digital recording showed the re-entry happened on 4 March, not 15 April as stated in the judicial review application.
The applicant argued that re-entry without warning or notice was constitutionally unfair and that the District Court had no proper procedure for it. He also contended that a “remand without prejudice” was unknown in law. The Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that re-entry was an administrative step needed to complete the sentencing process, and that no further action would be taken without notice and an opportunity for the applicant to be heard.
Mr Justice Meenan held that the procedure required depended on whether re-entry was administrative or a substantive legal step. In this case, he found it was administrative: the charges had not been finally determined, and re-entry allowed a final order to be made at a future hearing of which the applicant had notice. The court said the applicant would then have the opportunity to exercise his constitutional rights.
The judge also found that the “without prejudice” wording did not affect the validity of the remand order. It reflected that the applicant could make further submissions before any final order. Referring to an earlier High Court decision on continuing bail, the judge found no objection to remanding the applicant on bail until 15 June 2016.
The court dismissed the judicial review application. It did not grant any of the reliefs sought, which included orders quashing the remand and the purported re-entry, and declarations about the District Court’s powers and procedure.