The Supreme Court dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal in the Carter case and answered “yes” to both relevant questions in a case stated about Kenny. The two proceedings concerned the remand procedure under section 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, which applies when a person is convicted of an offence committed during a suspended sentence.
In a judgment delivered by O’Donnell J on 5 March 2015, the Court held that “next sitting” means the next sitting that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. For the Circuit Court, that means the next formally scheduled sitting under the court rules. Urgent hearings do not count as scheduled sittings for this purpose. In the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, the phrase means the next full day of general court business.
Carter had received suspended prison terms in the District Court in January 2011. After he pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court to two offences committed during the suspension period, the Circuit Court remanded him to the District Court one week later. The District Court had scheduled sittings in the intervening period. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that this was not a valid remand under section 99(9).
The Court held that a valid remand under subsection (9) is a precondition to the suspending court exercising its power under subsection (10) to revoke a suspended sentence. It dismissed the DPP’s appeal and affirmed the High Court’s answers. It did not decide whether a separate common law power to reactivate suspended sentences remains, as that issue had not been fully argued.
Kenny had been remanded from the District Court to the Dublin Circuit Court for 18 June 2014, the start of the next scheduled term. Although the Circuit Court held some urgent hearings before then, they had not been scheduled when the remand order was made. The Supreme Court held the order was valid and that Kenny was lawfully before the Circuit Court under section 99(9). The question about consequences of an invalid order therefore did not arise.
The Court also said prosecutors who know a section 99 remand is required must be able to inform the sentencing court of the suspending court’s next sitting. O’Donnell J described section 99 as complex and in need of urgent, comprehensive review.