The High Court has refused Alan Brady’s application to quash a Circuit Court order remanding him on bail, finding that his original bail obligations revived after a defective return for trial was corrected.
Mr Justice O’Neill delivered judgment on 26 March 2010 in judicial review proceedings against Judge Raymond Fulham and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The challenge concerned Judge Fulham’s 6 May 2009 order that Mr Brady remain on bail and attend the next sitting of Wicklow Circuit Criminal Court.
Mr Brady had been charged in 2005 with offences under the Misuse of Drugs Acts. In September 2006, he was returned for trial and released on bail subject to a €2,000 cash lodgment, surrender of his passport and twice-weekly signing at Blanchardstown Garda Station. The recognisance required him to attend court until the charges were disposed of according to law.
In December 2007, the Circuit Court made no order after finding the return for trial defective because the charges were not attached. A District Court amendment was later made, but the amended order was lost in the post. In March 2009, a copy was amended to include the charges and return Mr Brady for trial. His bail money had been returned and his passport collected in 2008.
The applicant argued that the “no order” had ended his bail obligations and that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to remand him. The DPP argued that the recognisance remained in force and that the corrected return gave the Circuit Court jurisdiction.
Justice O’Neill concluded that the original recognisance continued to bind Mr Brady. While the prosecution was on hold pending correction of the return, he was relieved of the need to attend the Circuit Court because no proceedings were taking place there. Once the District Court made the amending order, his attendance obligation revived. The return of the money and passport was an error because the charges had not been disposed of according to law.
The judge also held that, even if the original recognisance had ended, the corrected return gave the Circuit Court jurisdiction to try the charges and to make a remand order. The 6 May order required Mr Brady to attend the next sitting, on 30 June 2009, and set bail on the previous terms. The court said an accused person does not have a veto over bail conditions, though Mr Brady could decline to enter the required bond or seek relief over the conditions.
The High Court refused all relief sought. It did not determine the underlying criminal charges.