The High Court has quashed a 21-day prison sentence imposed in default of payment of a €100 bail estreatment, ruling that the District Judge had exceeded her jurisdiction. It also granted a declaration and ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to pay the applicant’s costs.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 6 December 2016 in Stephen Fitzpatrick’s judicial review proceedings against the DPP. The case arose after Mr Fitzpatrick failed to appear in the District Court on 16 October 2015. A District Judge ordered his €100 bail to be estreated and set 21 days’ imprisonment in default.
The High Court found that the applicable legislation and District Court Rules set a maximum default term of 15 days for the amount involved. The DPP indicated before the hearing that she would not oppose certiorari if Mr Fitzpatrick did not seek costs. He did not accept that offer. At the hearing, the DPP continued to consent to certiorari but argued on several issues, including whether the error could be corrected under the District Court’s “slip rule” and whether costs should be awarded.
The court rejected the slip-rule argument. It found no evidence that the District Judge’s decision was a clerical mistake or an accidental slip: the judge had deliberately imposed the sentence after considering the matter, but had made an error of jurisdiction. The court said an application to correct an error in the District Court was not a prerequisite to judicial review in this case.
The DPP also argued that Mr Fitzpatrick’s counsel should have alerted the District Judge to the error. The court accepted the solicitor’s affidavit evidence that counsel did not know the value of the bail bond when the order was made; the judge had not announced it. The court said this explained why counsel could not identify the excessive sentence at the time. It also held that Mr Fitzpatrick’s failure to explain his absence was irrelevant to whether the judge acted within jurisdiction and to the costs application.
Because the DPP had argued the issues at the hearing, the judge found the case was not a routine consent application and that the approach to costs in the cited Supreme Court decision in Miley did not require costs to be withheld. The High Court granted the order of certiorari and declaration sought and awarded costs to Mr Fitzpatrick.