The High Court has ruled that the prosecution did not have to prove a valid arrest or state the statutory power used to arrest Maressa Bradley in order to proceed on two public order charges. The ruling answered questions referred by the District Court after it dismissed the charges on that basis; it did not itself determine Bradley’s guilt or make a conviction order.
The case arose from events on 1 September 2019 on South Circular Road, Dublin 8. The District Court’s stated facts were that gardaí responding to a call found Bradley outside her property, shouting at her former partner. The court recorded that she then swore at gardaí, while members of the public were present.
A garda directed Bradley to leave the area under section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 and explained the consequences of not complying. The District Judge found the direction lawful. Bradley did not comply, and the garda arrested her at 7.45pm. The District Court recorded that the garda told her she was being arrested for failing to comply with the section 8 direction.
At the close of the prosecution case, Bradley’s solicitor argued that the charges should be dismissed because the garda had not identified in evidence the power of arrest used. The District Judge accepted that argument, held proof of a valid arrest was required and dismissed both charges. The Director of Public Prosecutions brought a case stated to the High Court, asking whether that approach was correct for charges under sections 6 and 8 of the Act.
Justice Meenan said the District Court had found that all evidence relevant to the alleged offences concerned events before the arrest, with no relevant evidence relating to what happened afterwards. He applied the general rule that the District Court’s jurisdiction to hear a criminal case is not affected simply because an accused may have been brought before it through an illegal process, while noting that the rule has limits.
The judge distinguished an earlier case involving an arrest made after gardaí trespassed into a dwelling, where constitutional rights were breached. He said those circumstances did not arise here. The garda had told Bradley the substance of the reason for her arrest, and did not also have to cite section 24, which provides an arrest power under the Act.
The High Court answered “No” to each of the three questions: whether proof of a valid arrest was an essential ingredient, whether the prosecution had to state the power of arrest, and whether dismissing the case on that basis was correct. The judgment does not record a subsequent District Court hearing or the eventual outcome of the charges.