The Supreme Court has allowed appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, restoring District Court orders for warrants to commit Gavin Owens and Patrick Dooley to prison for unpaid fines.
In a judgment delivered on 27 May 2019, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan held that the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 did not apply to the fines imposed on the two men in July 2015. The issue was whether the Act’s new procedures limited the District Court’s power in 2016 to issue warrants to enforce prison terms already imposed for non-payment.
Owens was fined €500 on 3 July 2015 for a road traffic offence and ordered to pay within four months. The order provided for five days’ imprisonment if he did not pay. He paid nothing, and a warrant was issued on 14 March 2016.
Dooley was fined €500 for each of four offences on 22 July 2015, with 90 days to pay and 60 days’ imprisonment in default for each fine. He did not pay, and a warrant was issued on 17 February 2016.
The 2014 Act took effect on 11 January 2016. It introduced payment options and procedures for dealing with unpaid fines, including consideration of recovery, attachment of earnings or community service before imprisonment. The original fines and default prison terms in these cases had been imposed under the earlier law and were not challenged in the judicial review proceedings.
The High Court quashed both warrants and directed the DPP to initiate proceedings under the 2014 Act. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision to quash the warrants but set aside the direction to the DPP, leaving any decision to begin proceedings to the Director. The State appealed to the Supreme Court only against the decision concerning the warrants.
Justice Finlay Geoghegan concluded that no provision of the 2014 Act applied to the fines or the steps required to enforce the earlier orders. The new statutory procedures did not provide for issuing warrants where the prison term had already been set under the previous law. She therefore held that the District Court’s warrant jurisdiction under the earlier legislation was not subject to the 2014 Act in these circumstances.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and vacated the High Court and Court of Appeal orders quashing the warrants. The appeal did not concern the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside the direction requiring the DPP to begin proceedings under the 2014 Act.