The Court of Appeal has dismissed Andrew O’Neill’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to order his release from custody under Article 40 of the Constitution.
The appeal concerned a remand order made by Longford Circuit Court on 23 January 2019. O’Neill had been arrested the previous day in Clondalkin, after Gardaí stopped him while he was walking there. The court said a warrant had issued on 4 December 2018 after he failed to attend a court listing in a case involving serious charges, including aggravated burglary and assault.
At the Circuit Court hearing, the judge remanded O’Neill in custody, citing his history of bench warrants and the seriousness of the charges. The judge also gave him liberty to apply for bail after contacting his solicitor. O’Neill later began an Article 40 inquiry, but the High Court refused to direct his release. He appealed, arguing that the High Court had not properly held the inquiry and that he had been remanded while unrepresented.
The Court of Appeal said the High Court judge was entitled to decline to rely on affidavits from both sides because they consisted of hearsay. It observed that, once factual disputes emerged, the court could expect evidence in proper form. The judgment also expressed concern that information about the applicant’s account of discussions concerning the warrants, and the Circuit Court judge’s offer of liberty to apply for bail, had not been fully presented at the outset of the inquiry.
The appeal court rejected the argument that the remand hearing amounted to a fundamental denial of justice. It said O’Neill had failed to appear for a listing, was stopped about seven weeks after the warrant issued, and told the Circuit Court he had forgotten the date. In those circumstances, it said, the judge was entitled to view the bail conditions as breached and remand him in custody.
The judgment noted that no bail application had been made, either in the Circuit Court or under the High Court’s bail jurisdiction, while acknowledging that O’Neill’s history of warrants could make such an application difficult. It held that the remand procedure did not justify release under Article 40.4 and dismissed the appeal. The decision did not determine the underlying criminal charges.