The High Court has dismissed Gareth Hill’s challenge to a Circuit Court decision to defer sentencing on charges to which he had pleaded guilty until after the trial of earlier charges, which he denied.
Mr Justice Binchy delivered the judgment on 24 April 2018. The case concerned whether a Circuit Court judge could postpone sentencing on the later charges while awaiting the outcome of the earlier case, where the accused was on bail when the later offences were allegedly committed.
The earlier charges related to alleged drug offences in August 2016. Hill was awaiting trial when, in January 2017, he was arrested and charged with further alleged possession-with-intent-to-supply offences involving cannabis, cocaine and diamorphine. He pleaded guilty to the 2017 charges in May 2017.
At the sentencing hearing, his counsel asked the Circuit Court to sentence him immediately. The prosecution sought an adjournment so the court could know the outcome of the 2016 charges, citing the potential relevance of section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. That provision can require consecutive sentences for offences committed while on bail and treats the bail status as an aggravating factor in specified circumstances. The Circuit Court adjourned sentencing to November 2017.
Hill sought judicial review, arguing that the delay intruded on the presumption of innocence for the 2016 charges and denied him an expeditious process. He asked the High Court to quash the adjournment and grant related declarations. The prosecution argued that the adjournment was lawful, that Hill remained presumed innocent on the earlier charges, and that he had already pleaded guilty to the later ones.
Mr Justice Binchy held that the presumption of innocence applied to the specific 2016 charges and had not been displaced. Hill’s guilty pleas meant it no longer applied to the 2017 charges. The judge found no authority for extending the presumption in the way Hill proposed, to govern the timing of sentencing on separate charges. Courts could organise their business and take account of legislative policy, provided constitutional rights were not compromised.
The judge also rejected the expeditious-trial argument on the circumstances before him. The trial of the earlier charges had been delayed by Hill’s transfer application and then stayed at his own request while the judicial review proceeded; he had also consented to remain in custody pending its determination. The judge cautioned that a different case could produce a different result if an unacceptable delay in the earlier trial were clearly likely.
The application was dismissed. The court did not need to decide the prosecution’s separate argument that the challenge had become moot after the original remand order expired. The judgment did not determine the 2016 charges or impose sentence on the 2017 charges.