The Court of Appeal allowed appeals by Kenneth Forde and Sean Moynihan over warrants committing them to prison after they failed to pay sums estreated from their bail recognizances. In his judgment of 19 December 2019, Mr Justice Edwards said he would grant orders of certiorari quashing both warrants because the notices they received omitted a required warning about imprisonment.
The men had each failed to attend court as required by bail. The District Court ordered estreatment of €250 from Moynihan and €500 from Forde. After they did not pay within the required period, committal warrants were issued: seven days’ imprisonment for Moynihan and five days for Forde.
They had challenged the warrants by judicial review, arguing that the notices of estreatment were not in the form required by the District Court Rules. The notices said that the recognizances had been estreated, stated the amounts due and explained that an application to vary or discharge the orders could be made within 21 days. But they did not warn that failure to pay within the specified period could result in a prison warrant being issued without further notice.
The High Court refused relief. It considered that the legislation required notice of the right to seek variation or discharge, and that failure to use the prescribed form did not invalidate the warrants. The men appealed.
Edwards said Order 27, Rule 8 required notice in Form 27.9, which included a prominent warning about possible imprisonment. Although another District Court rule allowed departures from forms where the wording used was sufficient in substance and effect, he found that the complete omission of the warning did not meet that standard. The warning was intended to bring the risk to a person’s liberty clearly to their attention, he said.
The judgment records that the appeals should be allowed and that Edwards would grant certiorari quashing both warrants. He had read and generally agreed with a judgment by Mr Justice McCarthy, while adding his own observations. The source does not set out the other judgment’s full reasoning or indicate any further orders.