The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to a Circuit Court order affirming a four-month detention sentence for a young offender who failed to attend and pursue his appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 2 February 2016, Mr Justice McDermott held that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to strike out the appeal and affirm the District Court order. He found that the Circuit Court acted lawfully on the information before it. The Director of Public Prosecutions had not told the Circuit Court that no place was available at Oberstown, or asked it to defer the order or warrant.
The notice party, identified in the judgment as D.C., had pleaded guilty to knowingly being a passenger in a stolen car. The District Court imposed four months’ detention in January 2015 after a place became available at Oberstown. D.C. appealed and was released on recognisance. He later failed to attend the Circuit Court appeal hearings. On 20 March 2015, the Circuit Court struck out the appeal and affirmed the conviction and detention order, allowing for time already served.
A committal warrant named Oberstown as the detention centre. When authorities later sought to execute it, no place was available there. Trinity House had a place but said it could not receive D.C. under a warrant specifying Oberstown. The warrant was not executed, and a later application to amend it was abandoned.
The Director argued that the Circuit Court should have checked whether a place was available before affirming the detention order, relying on section 143 of the Children Act 2001. The High Court rejected the argument that the Circuit Court had to conduct a fresh sentencing hearing when a child appellant failed to prosecute an appeal. It said the statutory requirement to consider whether detention is suitable applies when detention is imposed, while affirming the District Court’s order in these circumstances did not amount to imposing a new sentence.
However, the judge said it was “necessary and proper” for a Circuit Court judge to be satisfied that a place exists before directing the registrar to issue a committal warrant for a child. The court may take steps such as seeking information about availability or procuring the child’s attendance. The prosecution has a primary duty to provide relevant information about the child’s whereabouts and whether a place is available.
The High Court concluded that the Circuit Court acted within its jurisdiction because it had not been given evidence or submissions about the unavailable place. It also said judicial review should be refused in any event, citing the prosecution’s failure to raise the issues earlier, delay and potential prejudice to the young person. The application for certiorari was refused.