The High Court has quashed a bail condition which confined John Brennan to his Drogheda home for 24 hours a day, finding that the District Court had no lawful power to impose that form of house arrest.
Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled on June 18, 2009 that the condition amounted to an extreme and unreasonable restriction on Brennan's liberty. The judge also held that the Bail Act 1997 did not authorise a court to require an accused person to remain continuously inside a particular house.
Brennan had appeared before Drogheda District Court on January 9 charged with assault, robbery of a box of cigarettes and producing an iron bar in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person. He pleaded not guilty. The DPP had directed trial on indictment.
At the time, Brennan was already on bail in separate Circuit Court proceedings. The new offences were alleged to have been committed while he was on that bail. However, the High Court noted that the prosecution did not advance evidence that Brennan was likely to abscond or interfere with witnesses. Garda evidence confirmed his address and that he had complied with his existing bail conditions.
District Judge Flannan Brennan granted bail on a €500 bond but required Brennan to remain at his Rathmullen Park home at all times except for specified appointments. An application to relax that condition was later refused.
Mr Justice Peart held that the statutory power to require an accused person to reside or remain in a particular “district or place” referred to an area such as a town, village or estate, not confinement inside a house. Such house arrest amounted to a deprivation of liberty requiring clear legislative authority, which the Act did not provide.
The judge stressed that his ruling did not mean ordinary curfews, or requirements to remain at home for substantial periods, were necessarily unlawful. Their validity would depend on the degree of restriction and the evidence justifying it in each case.