The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Leroy Roche, also known as Dumbrell, against the refusal to order his release from Cloverhill Prison. The court affirmed the High Court decision, holding that the Circuit Criminal Court had jurisdiction to revoke his bail and that the alleged error in interpreting the bail conditions did not justify release under Article 40.4.2º of the Constitution.
Roche was charged with violent disorder and had been granted bail subject to conditions including residence at a specified address, reporting to a Garda station, a night-time curfew and restrictions on travel. In June 2014, Judge Ring temporarily relaxed the conditions to allow a holiday in Portugal. The order specified travel dates and required Roche to surrender his passport on his return on 29 June.
Roche returned early to Dublin Airport on 25 June. He did not return to the required residence or report to the named Garda station, and he retained his passport. A Garda officer applied for an arrest warrant, alleging breaches of bail conditions. The application also referred to an alleged serious assault in Portugal, but Judge Ring excluded that allegation as hearsay.
At the hearing on 27 June, Roche did not give evidence. His lawyers argued that the relevant conditions were still relaxed when he returned early. Judge Ring found breaches relating to residence, passport surrender and curfew, and revoked bail. The High Court later refused his application for release, finding the relaxation was intended to facilitate the holiday and that ending the trip early restored the previous conditions.
The Supreme Court held that the Bail Act 1997 did not displace the common-law authority of the court hearing the criminal case to decide bail matters, including revoking bail. It also concluded that any error by Judge Ring in construing the order was an error within her jurisdiction, not a fundamental defect requiring release through habeas corpus. The appropriate route to challenge the bail decision was to seek a fresh decision in the High Court’s bail jurisdiction.
The court rejected the argument that the Circuit Court had to hold separate hearings to determine whether bail conditions were breached and whether bail remained appropriate. It also examined the detention order and found no defect on its face. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed. The court did not determine the underlying criminal charge.