The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the Governor of Saint Patrick’s Institution, holding that a High Court stay of criminal proceedings did not prevent the District Court from remanding Michael Farrell, also known as Regan, in custody while those proceedings were suspended.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Susan Denham on 10 April 2014, concerned a remand made at Trim District Court on 28 June 2012. Farrell was facing alleged dangerous driving, failing to keep a vehicle at the scene of an accident, and making off without payment. He had been granted bail, with a €300 bond and a €300 independent surety, but had been remanded in custody with consent to bail on several occasions.
Farrell was also serving a three-month detention sentence imposed on 27 April 2012 for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. With remission, he was due for release on 4 July. On 25 June, the High Court had stayed the criminal proceedings pending a judicial review concerning, among other matters, refusals of legal aid and a mentor. Despite that stay being before Trim District Court, Farrell was remanded in custody until 5 July. He was released that day after Cloverhill District Court made no further order.
The High Court later declared that Farrell was entitled to have been released on 4 July, finding that the remand order was invalid because it was inconsistent with the stay. The Governor appealed. The Supreme Court first held that the appeal was moot because Farrell had been released, but exercised its discretion to hear it, citing the issue’s potential systemic relevance and the likelihood it could otherwise escape review.
The Supreme Court said a stay suspends proceedings and keeps them in a holding pattern; it does not terminate them. While a stay prevents significant progress in the case, orders needed to keep proceedings in being may still be made if they do not materially progress the case and are not contrary to the stay. The court said the specific stay here did not remove the District Court’s jurisdiction to make such an order, including a remand in the circumstances.
The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal. The judgment did not determine the underlying criminal charges or the judicial review application.