The High Court ordered the release of a minor applicant from Wheatfield Prison after finding that the warrant for his detention did not record the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to have his case tried summarily.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 9 October 2015, Mr Justice Noonan held that the omission was a fatal flaw: the warrant was bad on its face, and the District Court had no jurisdiction to try the applicant summarily without the Director’s decision.
The applicant had been convicted in the Children’s Court on 28 September 2015 of an offence under section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended. He received a four-month prison sentence in the District Court. The Director had directed a summary trial, and the District Judge had considered the offence minor. The dispute concerned the warrant, which did not mention the Director’s decision.
For the applicant, counsel argued that the omission invalidated the warrant. The respondent’s counsel argued that earlier authority about consent required for summary trials of certain scheduled offences was distinguishable, and that the Director’s decision was not an essential proof that had to appear in the warrant.
Justice Noonan considered earlier decisions, including cases on the Director’s role in selecting the venue for trial. He concluded that the Director’s decision invokes the District Court’s summary jurisdiction. If the Director had chosen trial by jury, the District Judge could not proceed summarily; in the judge’s view, the District Court likewise lacked jurisdiction if no decision had been made. The decision therefore had to be recorded on the warrant.
The judge acknowledged that his conclusion differed from the High Court decision in State (Comerford) v Kirby, but said the court’s attention in that case appeared not to have been drawn to other relevant decisions. He ordered the applicant’s release. The judgment addressed the validity of the warrant and detention; it did not set out a separate decision on the underlying conviction.