The High Court found that Gardaí failed to comply with a statutory requirement to bring two accused before the District Court at the start of its sitting after they were arrested and charged overnight. It ruled that the delay did not, by itself, deprive the District Court of jurisdiction to hear their cases.
Ms Justice Faherty delivered the judgment on 3 October 2017 in a consultative case stated by District Court Judge David McHugh. He asked the High Court to determine the effect of the way the accused were brought before Blanchardstown District Court on 4 October 2016.
The two men had been arrested without warrant at about 11pm on 3 October and detained overnight at Ronanstown Garda Station. They were charged at about 5.36am the following morning. A court sitting began at about 10.30am. The men were transported with other prisoners first to the Criminal Courts of Justice, where they remained in the van while other prisoners were taken in, and then to Blanchardstown. They arrived at about 11.35am and were held in a court cell. Their case was called at about 11.30am, when they were not present, and again after noon.
Their solicitors argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the men had not been brought to court as required by section 15(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1951. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the section applied only where a person was charged after 5pm in the evening; the men were charged after midnight, at 5.36am.
Justice Faherty rejected that interpretation. She said the reference to 5pm identified the point from which the provision applied, rather than limiting it to charges made during the evening. Because the men had been charged after 5pm and a District Court sitting was due before noon the next day, they should have been brought before a judge at the commencement of the sitting. The first question was answered yes: there had been a failure to comply with the section.
The court answered the second question with a qualified no. The breach did not automatically remove the District Court’s jurisdiction to proceed. The District Court should consider whether the process involved a deliberate and conscious violation of the accuseds’ constitutional rights, which could justify refusing to hear the cases. The judgment did not decide that issue on the evidence; it left it for the District Court. The court said the third question, about any further effect of the breach, did not arise given its answer to the second question.