The Supreme Court has dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal over a bench warrant issued to secure Martin Morgan’s attendance at a High Court hearing concerning an unpaid confiscation order. It held that the High Court had jurisdiction to issue such a warrant, but that the warrant should be set aside because the judge did not consider whether it was necessary in the circumstances.
The case concerns enforcement proceedings under the Criminal Justice Act 1994, not a new trial or a decision on whether Morgan owed the confiscation sum. The High Court had not yet decided whether to impose a further term of imprisonment for non-payment.
Morgan was convicted by a Dublin Circuit Court jury in 2008 of brothel keeping and organising prostitution. The judgment says the court later made a confiscation order in 2013 for €252,980.33. On appeal, the amount was reduced in 2018 to €243,583, with credit for cash seized at the premises.
The DPP began High Court proceedings in May 2019 over the unpaid sum, seeking imprisonment in default. In a later motion, the DPP sought attachment or, alternatively, a bench warrant to secure Morgan’s attendance. His solicitors and counsel appeared for him. In November 2020, the High Court granted the warrant, saying his personal attendance should be secured in the interests of fairness.
The Court of Appeal allowed Morgan’s appeal against the warrant in 2022. It considered attachment a preferable option, subject to appropriate notice and evidence, because there was no demonstrated failure to obey a process requiring him to attend. The Supreme Court reached the same result on a different basis.
Delivering judgment on 29 June 2023, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said the 1994 Act continued the High Court’s criminal jurisdiction for this enforcement process, including its power to issue a bench warrant. But the Act required a reasonable opportunity for the defendant to make representations; it did not require personal attendance. The process could therefore be heard in the accused’s absence where he was represented.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court judge had erred by not considering whether a warrant was necessary. On the facts, it was not: Morgan could answer the process through his lawyers and present evidence as appropriate. The Court set aside the warrant on that narrow ground and dismissed the DPP’s appeal. It did not rule on whether Morgan should be imprisoned for default, and the judgment records that the DPP remained at liberty to seek attachment in further proceedings.