The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the Governor of Oberstown Children Detention Campus, leaving in place a High Court order directing the release of a juvenile after finding that the District Court could not require an adult surety to lodge €150 in cash as a condition of appeal bail.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy on January 26, 2023, concerned a recognisance set after the juvenile pleaded guilty to several offences in Trim District Court on September 21, 2021. The court imposed four months’ detention, set a €25 bond in the juvenile’s own name and required an independent surety of €300, with €150 cash to be lodged.
The juvenile challenged the legality of detention under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. The High Court agreed that section 5(4) of the Bail Act 1997, as amended, prevented the District Court from imposing the cash lodgement condition on a person under 18, and ordered release. The Governor appealed that ruling. The judgment records that the Governor would not seek the juvenile’s return to detention even if the appeal succeeded.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the appeal was moot but decided to hear it because the issue had systemic importance and could affect District Court decisions on recognisances for juveniles. It also allowed the Governor’s remaining arguments, which it considered closely related to those made in the High Court. A separate ground was abandoned.
The Governor argued that the power to set bail terms, including sureties and cash, arose from the common law and remained available despite section 5(4). The juvenile’s position was that section 5 did not apply to people under 18 and that it supplied the legal basis for requiring money to be paid into court.
Justice Kennedy held that courts retain broad common law powers over bail, but the requirement to lodge a portion of recognisance funds as a condition of release is now governed by statute. Section 5(4) expressly disapplies that section to people under 18. A court may still set bail for a minor, including an independent surety or cash in lieu, but cannot add a condition requiring a portion of the surety to be lodged.
The court found no error in the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal. It did not order the juvenile’s return to detention.