The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Governor of Limerick Prison’s appeal against a High Court finding that Danny Connors was unlawfully detained after a District Court judge refused to accept his offer to plead guilty.
In a judgment delivered on 6 July 2017, Mr Justice Edwards said the District Court judge had been wrong to refuse the change of plea. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the resulting remand in custody from 14 to 19 January 2016 was unlawful. It did not end the prosecution or direct that Connors be discharged from it.
Connors had pleaded not guilty to a charge, brought with two co-accused, of possessing a stolen blue twin axle trailer valued at €750, knowing it was stolen or being reckless about that. His trial began on 10 December 2015 but was adjourned part heard. After his bail was revoked on 12 January 2016 for breaches of its conditions, he appeared in custody when the trial was due to resume two days later.
The parties then disputed the law on joint enterprise. The trial judge proposed an adjournment for written legal submissions. After a renewed bail application was refused, Connors consulted his solicitor, who told the court that Connors wished to plead guilty. The judge declined to accept the plea, citing concern that Connors might be convicted while co-accused with the same level of participation could later be acquitted. The judge remanded him in custody, initially for four weeks and then, after a request from the defence, until 19 January.
The High Court released Connors on 18 January 2016 after finding his detention unlawful. The prison governor appealed. The Court of Appeal considered whether the District Court judge could refuse the plea and whether the remand was lawful. It held that the right to choose a plea is part of the constitutional right to a fair trial, and that refusing a guilty plea requires quite exceptional circumstances. The concern about possible different outcomes for the co-accused did not meet that threshold. The court also rejected the governor’s claims that Connors had acquiesced in the delay and that the High Court had made a material factual error.
The appeal concerned a remand order that had expired, but the Court of Appeal decided the issue because it could recur while evading review. It said the refusal of the plea was a serious flaw, but not one that by itself required the criminal proceedings to be abandoned. The case against Connors remained part heard, with no resumption date set and no remand order in force. The court said the District Court could set a date if the case were re-entered, and that Connors should be allowed to plead guilty if he still wished to do so. The court expressed that view as guidance on how the case might proceed; it did not itself set a date or make a new remand order.