The High Court has refused an applicant’s bid to quash a District Court remand linked to a suspended sentence, ruling that the remand could be made a week after he was sentenced for theft. The issue of whether to reactivate that sentence remains for Balbriggan District Court.
The applicant pleaded guilty to theft in Nenagh District Court and was sentenced on 14 July 2023. The offence had been committed on 1 December 2022, during the suspension period of an 18-month sentence imposed in Balbriggan. The judge in Nenagh was not told about that sentence before imposing the theft sentence.
After learning of the suspended sentence, the prosecuting garda had the case relisted in Nenagh. On 21 July, the applicant appeared before the court, which remanded him to Balbriggan for a judge there to consider possible reactivation under section 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. He was due to appear in Balbriggan on 27 July.
The applicant argued that the Nenagh judge had no power to deal with the case after sentencing, and that the remand should have been made at the same sitting. He also raised fair-procedure concerns. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the remand was a separate administrative step required by statute and that the fair-procedure issue had not been properly pleaded.
Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty held that section 99(8A) requires the remand to follow sentence and requires the original sentencing court to consider reactivation within the statutory 15-day period. It does not require the remand to be made at the same sitting as sentence. The remand in this case met the statutory timing requirement. The judge in Nenagh was functus officio in relation to the theft sentence, but could still take the separate procedural step of securing the applicant’s appearance in Balbriggan.
The judge did not decide the fair-procedure complaint, finding that it had not been specifically pleaded and no application had been made to amend the grounds. She also said the Balbriggan District Court should have been asked to rule on its jurisdiction first.
The High Court refused the orders of certiorari and prohibition sought by the applicant. It remitted the matter to Balbriggan District Court to deal with reactivation of the suspended sentence and awarded costs to the DPP. The remittal and costs orders were stayed for 28 days from perfection of the order; any further stay after that period would be for the relevant appellate court if an appeal was lodged in time.