The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by D against the High Court’s refusal to admit him to bail while he faces charges of demanding money with menaces, money laundering and threatening to kill. The decision did not determine whether he committed any of the alleged offences.
The judgment, delivered on 17 July 2024, said the prosecution objected to bail under section 2 of the Bail Act 1997. It argued that refusing bail was necessary to prevent further serious offences, including assaults, criminal damage and threats to witnesses. The appellant argued that the objection was, in substance, based on the grounds recognised in the 1966 O’Callaghan case, a distinction the judgment said could affect the burden and standard of proof.
The charges arose from alleged visits by two men to complainant Mr ON’s home on 6, 14 and 16 November 2021. The prosecution alleged that money was demanded and that Mr ON handed over €41,000 during the second visit and €3,000 during the third. Gardaí later stopped a car driven by D. The judgment said €3,000 in €50 notes, wrapped in a white plastic bag, was found in the car’s glove compartment.
Mr ON later went to a Garda station to withdraw his complaint. The judgment noted that, based on the available hearing transcripts, the withdrawal did not say the visits or payments had not happened. It said Mr ON was not in fear and may have been confused. The court described the withdrawal as not total, clear and unequivocal.
The High Court concluded there was an established basis for concern about further intimidation and refused bail. In considering whether a proposed independent surety could address its concerns, the judge sought information about the surety’s finances. The appeal judgment said this was within the judge’s prerogative in the circumstances, because the judge had made the surety’s independence and financial position material to whether bail might be granted.
D also argued that it was irrational to refuse him bail while granting bail to his co-accused, despite the judgment’s description of the evidence against the co-accused as stronger. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, pointing to the co-accused’s admissions in interview and in court as a basis on which the High Court could treat the two differently.
The Court of Appeal said it would itself have refused bail if deciding the application at first instance. It dismissed the appeal. The ruling concerns bail only; it does not decide the criminal charges.