The High Court has rejected James Fitzgerald’s challenge to a bench warrant issued after he failed to appear at Swords District Court on 26 November 2014 to answer two public order charges.
Mr Justice Eagar ruled that District Judge Dermot Dempsey acted lawfully and within jurisdiction when he issued the warrant. The proceedings sought to quash that order on grounds including excess of jurisdiction and breaches of natural and constitutional justice.
Fitzgerald had been arrested on 22 November 2014 on suspicion of offences under sections 4 and 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. He was charged and released on station bail, with a requirement to appear at Swords District Court four days later.
That same day, Fitzgerald was due at the Four Courts for separate High Court proceedings challenging provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. Those proceedings had been listed to begin on 25 November but were adjourned to the morning of 26 November because the case did not begin as scheduled. The judge said no judges were then available, and the case was later heard by Mr Justice Binchy.
Fitzgerald’s solicitor said counsel attended Swords District Court to explain his absence and request a later date. She also said a message had been left for the prosecuting Garda the previous evening. The presenting sergeant told the court there was no documentation supporting the explanation and cited Fitzgerald’s history of 31 previous bench warrants. The judge issued the warrant, with a direction that it be executed “with discretion”.
The affidavits and submissions differed on whether Fitzgerald could have attended both courts. The sergeant and a solicitor for the State said he was not compelled to attend the High Court at that time and could have attended Swords before travelling to the Four Courts. The judge said there was no evidence that attendance at both was impossible. He also noted that Fitzgerald had been bailed to appear in Swords and that the legislation did not provide for a District Court judge to remand a person released on bail in their absence because they needed to attend another court.
The court considered earlier decisions concerning warrants when an accused person failed to attend. It concluded that the authorities supported the District Judge’s decision as lawful and proportionate. The High Court therefore refused to quash the warrant. The judgment addresses the legality of its issue; it does not state the outcome of the underlying public order charges.