The High Court has refused an application to quash an arrest warrant issued after a woman failed to attend the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, following her mistaken temporary release from prison.
Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan gave judgment on 27 November 2008. The applicant sought an order of certiorari concerning a warrant issued on 4 December 2006, when she did not attend court to face assault and breach of the peace charges.
The judgment says the applicant had been remanded in custody after an earlier breach of bail. On 3 November 2006, the District Court remanded her in custody until 27 November. She was not produced in court that day, and the District Court issued a warrant for her production on 4 December.
The prison authorities granted her temporary release on 28 November, unaware of the District Court orders. The judgment attributes the release to an administrative failure and says the authorities believed she was in custody only for a three-month prison sentence. She did not attend court on 4 December, and the respondent judge issued the arrest warrant.
The applicant argued that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to issue it under the District Court Rules. Her counsel also submitted that fair procedures required the judge to use other means to secure her return before issuing a warrant. The Director of Public Prosecutions, the notice party, argued that the court’s warrant jurisdiction was not limited to the circumstances set out in those rules.
Mr Justice Sheehan relied on earlier authorities recognising an inherent jurisdiction to issue warrants where needed to compel an accused person’s attendance at trial. He held that the applicant remained obliged to attend court despite her wrongful release and despite the possibility that she did not know the date to which her case had been remanded in her absence.
The judge accepted that the District Judge could have adjourned briefly to allow the applicant to attend voluntarily. However, given her earlier failure to attend when the case was first listed for trial, he considered issuing the warrant appropriate. He held that the respondent judge had the necessary jurisdiction and refused the relief sought.
The judgment addresses the warrant challenge. It does not state the outcome of the underlying assault and breach of the peace charges.