The High Court has refused an application to release Leroy Roche, also known as Dumbre ll, from custody after his bail was revoked. Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh held that the bail conditions had been breached and that the court had power to revoke bail after an arrest under section 9(4) of the Bail Act 1997.
The application was brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, which allows a challenge to detention. The judge said he was not hearing an appeal from Judge Ring of the Circuit Criminal Court. He had to decide whether her decision involved a fundamental breach of constitutional rights or a significant defect in the order for detention.
Roche is accused of violent disorder. He had been granted bail subject to conditions including a curfew, daily signing at Kilmainham Garda station and residence at a named address. Bail was revoked in March 2014 after a finding that he had breached the curfew on at least five occasions. He was later readmitted to bail on the same conditions.
In June, Judge Ring relaxed the curfew, signing and residence conditions to allow a trip to Portugal. She also required Roche to return via Kilmainham Garda station on 29 June and surrender his passport. He came back early on 25 June. The judgment records that he did not return to the specified residence or go to the station to surrender his passport. Judge Ring found that he had breached the bail conditions and revoked bail.
The High Court rejected the argument that the relaxed conditions were ambiguous. It found they were intended to facilitate the planned Portugal trip and that abandoning or interrupting the trip would end the relaxation. The judge also noted that Roche gave no evidence about his understanding of the conditions, so the court could not know whether he was confused or understood them as Judge Ring did.
The court also rejected the argument that section 9 limited the Circuit Criminal Court’s powers, after a person was brought before it on a section 9(4) warrant, to forfeiture or estreatment of bail money. The judge concluded that the section did not remove the courts’ common law power to revoke bail for a breach.
The judgment states that evidence of an alleged serious assault in Portugal, included in an affidavit supporting the arrest-warrant application, was treated as inadmissible hearsay by Judge Ring and did not form part of her decision. The High Court said that evidence was not relied on in the Article 40 application. It refused the orders sought; it did not determine the underlying violent-disorder charge.