Judgment: 2005-03-04 · Court archive

High Court refuses judicial review after applicant was granted bail

The court said the challenge to a District Court bail refusal was moot because the applicant had since been admitted to bail; it declined to grant relief.

High Court · [2005] IEHC 60

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
  • O’Neill J.
  • O’Donovan J.
What

The court said the challenge to a District Court bail refusal was moot because the applicant had since been admitted to bail; it declined to grant relief.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The complaints about the District Court hearing were set out in an affidavit by the applicant’s solicitor. The solicitor said a court presenter had relayed Gardaí’s opinion that the proposed bail address was not where the applicant’s friend lived. The affidavit said the friend was in court and willing to confirm the address, but the judge would not hear him. It also alleged that the judge refused bail because of the seriousness of the charge and made a comment about people who attack Gardaí with cut-throat razors.

The High Court refused relief in a judicial review challenge to a District Court judge’s refusal of bail, ruling that the case had become moot after the applicant was admitted to bail in a later application.

In a judgment delivered on 4 March 2005, Mr Justice O’Neill said the applicant’s right to liberty had already been vindicated by an order made by Mr Justice O’Donovan on 24 May 2004. No order or declaration in the judicial review could now alter the applicant’s rights in a practical way, he said.

The applicant had sought to quash the bail refusal made on 5 May 2004 and declarations concerning the refusal to hear evidence on his bail application. The source records that O’Donovan J. had granted leave to bring the judicial review on 12 May 2004.

The complaints about the District Court hearing were set out in an affidavit by the applicant’s solicitor. The solicitor said a court presenter had relayed Gardaí’s opinion that the proposed bail address was not where the applicant’s friend lived. The affidavit said the friend was in court and willing to confirm the address, but the judge would not hear him. It also alleged that the judge refused bail because of the seriousness of the charge and made a comment about people who attack Gardaí with cut-throat razors.

The judgment records that affidavits for the Director of Public Prosecutions did not contest those account-of-events statements. O’Neill J. described the conduct alleged in the solicitor’s affidavit as a series of errors amounting to a flagrant and fundamental breach of natural justice and fair procedures. He addressed the unsworn assertion about the address, the refusal to hear contrary evidence, the reported comment and the lack of attention to ordinary bail considerations.

However, the DPP submitted that the case was moot because O’Donovan J. had admitted the applicant to bail on the same charges on 24 May 2004. O’Neill J. accepted that submission. He exercised his discretion to refuse the relief sought; the judgment does not make the requested order quashing the May bail refusal or grant the declarations sought.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review