The High Court refused David Ryan’s application to quash orders made under section 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, finding that his criminal case had reached finality and that his conduct would independently bar the relief sought.
In a judgment delivered on 29 June 2016, Ms Justice O’Regan considered Ryan’s challenge to a Cashel District Court order of 29 February 2016 and a Clonmel Circuit Court order of 3 March 2016. The orders followed his guilty plea to a new criminal damage offence and the revocation of part of a previously suspended sentence.
Ryan had originally pleaded guilty to four charges, including criminal damage. In April 2014, the Circuit Court imposed a cumulative six-year sentence, with the final three and a half years suspended on conditions that he keep the peace, be of good behaviour and remain alcohol-free. He was released from Cork Prison in May 2015.
The judgment records that Ryan committed another criminal damage offence on 27 January 2016 and pleaded guilty in the District Court the following month. On 3 March, the Circuit Court revoked the suspension and imposed two and a half years of the remaining three and a half years. Ryan sought to resist revocation under section 99(10), but did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction then or appeal the revocation under section 99(12).
Ryan argued that his judicial review application was brought within its time limit and that he had not acquiesced in the revocation. He also said the new offence was less serious than the offences considered in an earlier case, and that his breach of the good-behaviour condition was limited to the date of the new offence.
The court considered earlier decisions concerning section 99 and the effect of finality in criminal proceedings. It noted that the constitutional ruling in Moore v Ireland did not apply automatically to every case, and that each application had to be assessed on its own facts. O’Regan J found that Ryan’s case had reached finality because he had not appealed the revocation. The judicial review application did not extend the criminal process for that purpose.
The judge also concluded that, even if finality had not been reached, Ryan’s conduct barred the requested relief. The judgment cited his guilty plea to the new offence, breaches of the good-behaviour and alcohol conditions, his failure to pursue an appeal, and his decision not to raise a constitutional issue at the revocation hearing.
The court refused the claims for certiorari concerning both section 99(9) and section 99(10).