The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by a man whose bail was refused and set aside the High Court’s decision, finding there was no evidence that he was involved in or connected to the alleged intimidation of witnesses. The Court remitted the matter to the High Court; it did not itself grant bail.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s refusal on 14 October 2013 to admit the applicant to bail. He faced six charges arising from allegations that included violent behaviour, demanding money with menaces, trespass, violent disorder, intimidation and criminal damage. The alleged incidents, apart from one, were said to have occurred at a house on Ballygall Parade, Finglas. The allegations included a demand for €8,000 over an alleged drug debt. They were not findings of guilt.
The complainants later withdrew their statements. Four provided a joint affidavit dated 6 September 2013, and they had also made recorded statements at Finglas Garda Station seeking to withdraw their original complaints. At the High Court bail hearing, the State relied on the O’Callaghan grounds and section 2 of the Bail Act 1997. The Supreme Court said the section 2 objection did not form part of the High Court’s reason for refusing bail. The refusal rested on the view that witnesses had been intimidated and that release could endanger the case and those involved.
The Supreme Court accepted that the High Court judge could infer intimidation from the complaints and their withdrawal within days. But it said the State had not presented evidence that the applicant had intimidated the complainants or would interfere with them if released. The prosecution had to support an objection to bail with sufficiently cogent evidence to establish it as a probability. The Court noted that the State had not expressly relied on witness interference as a ground before the High Court, and the applicant’s evidence denying knowledge of intimidation had not been challenged in cross-examination.
The applicant had also given evidence that he had been out of custody since 2010, had committed no further offences and was drug-free. A Garda sergeant described previous convictions and bench warrants, as well as the seriousness of the charges and proposed bail conditions. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed the evidential basis for the refusal under appeal; it did not decide the underlying criminal charges.
The Court said the State should clearly identify which O’Callaghan grounds it relies on in a bail application, so the parties and judge can focus on the evidence needed to support or challenge them.