The Supreme Court held that Mark Cronin remained bound by his own bail recognizance after a murder charge against him was reinstated, but that two bailspersons were released from their obligations when the charge was struck out.
The ruling was delivered by Mr Justice Geoghegan on 18 December 2002 in a consultative case stated from the Circuit Court in Limerick. The case asked about the effect of a District Court judge’s decision to reinstate a charge that had earlier been struck out.
The judgment recounts that on 18 November 1998, Mark Cronin was rearrested and charged with the murder of Georgina O’Donnell on a new charge sheet. The book of evidence had been available, but was not in court earlier because of a misunderstanding. On an application made on behalf of Cronin, the District Court judge vacated the earlier strike-out and re-entered the original charge sheet. Cronin was remanded to return to Limerick District Court on 2 December. The stated purpose was to avoid a fresh High Court bail application and new recognizances.
Geoghegan J said Cronin had jointly requested the original charge’s re-entry with the State solicitor to avoid repeating the bail process. The court therefore considered him to have accepted that the proceedings continued and that he remained bound by his recognizance. The judgment notes that Cronin later breached his bail conditions and the High Court revoked his bail.
The court treated the two other respondents differently. The District Court had warned that it would strike out the charge if the State did not have the book of evidence ready. When it did so, the judge understood that the book was still unavailable and acted on substantial grounds, not a mistake. The bailspersons were absent and could reasonably believe their obligations had ended. Geoghegan J said they could not be bound by the later revival order without knowledge of the application, on principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court answered the third question in the case stated in the negative as to the second and third respondents, which was enough for the Circuit Court judge to dispose of the proceedings against them. Geoghegan J agreed with the answers proposed by McGuinness J. He did not decide the broader questions about District Court judges’ powers to reinstate struck-out charges, saying it was unnecessary to widen the case.