The High Court ruled that bail conditions confining a man to his Ballyfermot home for 16 hours each day and keeping him within the area at all times were unlawful, finding that the district judge who imposed them had exceeded his jurisdiction.
In a judgment delivered on 16 November 2005, Mr Justice Quirke said the conditions were unwarranted by evidence and unjustified by law. He said they came close to amounting to a refusal of bail and interfered with the applicant’s constitutional right to liberty.
The man had been arrested on 10 March 2005 and charged with an alleged public order offence said to have occurred on O’Connell Street that day. He was held overnight after gardaí discovered an outstanding bench warrant relating to another prosecution under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994.
At Dublin District Court the following day, prosecutors did not oppose bail or seek conditions. The judgment records that no evidence was presented in support of the bail application. The judge granted bail of €100 but imposed a curfew at the man’s home in Ballyfermot from 3pm to 7am every day and required him to remain within Ballyfermot at all times.
The applicant’s solicitor returned to court on 16 March to seek a variation of the conditions under section 6(3) of the Bail Act 1997, citing their severity and the restrictions they imposed. The district judge refused, saying the applicant was “a very lucky man”, according to the judgment.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that seeking a variation meant the applicant could not later challenge the original order, and that he should instead have appealed. Mr Justice Quirke rejected those arguments. He said the variation application did not prevent the applicant from seeking judicial review, particularly as the order continued to affect him after the judge refused to change it.
The High Court also found a breach of natural justice, saying the applicant’s advisers had not been given an adequate opportunity to make representations. The judgment says the conditions were not imposed on a supported concern that the applicant might fail to appear, interfere with witnesses or evidence, or for an objective under the Bail Act.
The judgment concludes that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought. The source text does not set out the terms of a formal final order beyond that conclusion.