The High Court ruled that an alleged failure to charge a man “forthwith” after his investigative detention ended would not, by itself, remove the District Court’s jurisdiction to hear the criminal case against him.
Mr Justice Coffey delivered the judgment on 14 December 2017 in a consultative case stated by a District Court judge under section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. The case concerned section 4(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 and the consequences of failing to comply with it.
The man appeared before the District Court in Carndonagh, Co Donegal, on 16 February 2016, charged with arson. His counsel argued that gardaí should have charged him immediately after deciding to end his detention under section 4. The defence said the delay made his subsequent detention, charge, station bail and court appearance unlawful, and deprived the District Court of jurisdiction.
Evidence set out in the case stated was that the man’s interview ended at 9.33pm on 7 November 2014, and a superintendent directed that he be charged at 9.43pm. He was released from section 4 detention and charged at 10.50pm. Garda evidence attributed the interval to preparing and printing the charge sheet, including a printer access code issue. The man was held in a cell during part of that period. Gardaí said this was for safe custody; one officer also referred to a belief that the man lived in Northern Ireland.
The High Court explained that section 4(5) requires release “forthwith” when detention is no longer needed for investigation, unless the person is charged or “caused to be charged” and brought before a court as soon as may be, or detention is authorised on another basis. The court said the wording allows time for necessary steps to prepare a charge where a charge sheet is not ready.
On the jurisdiction question, the court said antecedent illegality in detention, charging, station bail or the process of bringing an accused before the District Court does not generally prevent that court from hearing a criminal case. It identified exceptions where lawful presence is a statutory condition of jurisdiction, or where there has been an egregious violation of constitutional rights of the kind addressed in an earlier case.
The District Court judge had already found no breach of the man’s constitutional rights. The High Court said that even if the cell detention had been unjustified, it would not, on the facts described, amount to the kind of deliberate and serious violation that could deprive the District Court of jurisdiction. It answered the first three questions “No”, “Yes” and “Yes”. The fourth question did not arise; the court added that the answer would be “no”. It did not decide whether the detention was unlawful.