The High Court has refused an application to quash a District Court judge’s refusal to grant a legal aid certificate to a man charged with handling two stolen mobile phones.
In a judgment delivered on 11 June 2008, Mr Justice John Hedigan also refused the applicant’s requests for connected declarations and an order prohibiting or staying the criminal proceedings. The case was a judicial review of the legal aid decision, not an appeal on the charge itself.
The applicant appeared in Swords District Court on 24 October 2007, charged with handling phones valued at €152. The phones had been recovered. He opted for summary disposal, and the District Court accepted jurisdiction. His income was agreed to be €180 a week, and the judge accepted that he had insufficient means for legal aid.
The presenting garda told the District Court judge that the applicant was “at risk” of imprisonment. The judge disagreed after hearing details of the alleged offence, including the value of the phones and their recovery. The applicant’s counsel raised his limited means, disability benefit and inability to defend himself, but the judge found no exceptional circumstances warranting legal aid and refused the certificate.
The applicant argued that the judge had failed to make a proper enquiry, including by not asking the garda why he considered imprisonment a risk. Mr Justice Hedigan said the High Court’s role in judicial review was limited and did not turn it into an appeal court that re-examined the evidence and submissions before the District Court.
The judge said the District Court judge was responsible for assessing the charge’s gravity, and that the information before him was sufficient to make that assessment. The judgment noted that an application for legal aid could be renewed if later developments made the case more serious. It also referred to habeas corpus as a possible remedy if real injustice emerged.
The High Court refused the reliefs sought. It did not determine the applicant’s guilt or the outcome of the criminal charge.