The Court of Appeal has dismissed S.F.’s appeal against the refusal of bail, giving reasons for a decision it had announced after hearing the appeal on 10 September 2020. The judgment, delivered on 3 November, concluded that the High Court judge was entitled to find that S.F. was a flight risk and that no proposed bail conditions would ensure his attendance at trial.
S.F. was charged with possessing a submachine gun, a sawn-off shotgun and ammunition, and with contravening regulations intended to limit the spread of Covid-19. The charges followed a Garda stop of two vehicles travelling in convoy at Clara, County Offaly, on 27 May 2020. The firearms were found in the first vehicle, which had three occupants. S.F. was the sole occupant of the second car. A bottle containing petrol and a lighter were on its front passenger seat. Petrol-station CCTV showed an occupant of the first car filling the bottle and placing it in the second car. The judgment also referred to evidence that both cars stopped for fuel at another station.
The High Court refused bail on 10 June. S.F. argued on appeal that the judge had not considered whether financial terms or other conditions could address the risk of flight. He also said the judge had not sufficiently distinguished him from his co-accused, pointing to his student visa, Dublin tenancy and asserted work as a Deliveroo driver. The judgment noted that no evidence of his work had been given to the High Court. A €2,000 bail bond had been offered. S.F. was a Brazilian national who arrived in Ireland in 2019 and was already on bail in a separate, pending drug case when arrested on the present charges.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the High Court had applied the relevant bail principles and had given individual reasons based on the evidence, the seriousness of the charges, the likelihood of conviction and S.F.’s ties to Ireland.
The Court of Appeal said the High Court judge had identified strong circumstantial evidence against S.F. and had considered his personal circumstances separately from those of his co-accused. It accepted that the judge did not explicitly say that no conditions could secure attendance. However, it held that this was implicit in his statement that S.F. would “simply” not attend trial if released and that someone able to obtain firearms and ammunition could “disappear”. In the circumstances, the appeal was dismissed.