Bail persons were entitled to be heard before they could be bound anew by the re-entry of charges, Supreme Court judge Fennelly J said in a judgment delivered on 18 December 2002.
The judgment formed part of the court’s consideration of a case stated under section 16 of the Courts of Justice Act 1947. Fennelly J said the first two questions in the case stated should be answered in the affirmative and the third in the negative. He agreed with the reasoning of McGuinness J and Geoghegan J on the second question, and with McGuinness J on the answer to the third.
Fennelly J said an order of a District Judge could ordinarily be recalled and altered during the sittings in the circumstances described in the applicant’s submissions. He said that was not the problem in this case: the order could have been recalled and altered, provided the bail persons were permitted to be heard.
The judgment identifies the applicant as Superintendent Anthony Kennelly and the respondents as Mark Cronin, Catherine Cronin and Marie Cronin. It does not set out the underlying charges, the circumstances of their re-entry, or the wording of the three questions in the case stated. The excerpt records Fennelly J’s agreement with the stated answers and his explanation of the hearing requirement; it does not reproduce a separate operative order.