The Supreme Court has ruled that two sureties could not be bound by a bail recognizance re-imposed after murder charges were struck out and later re-entered without their notice or agreement. It answered three questions referred by a Limerick Circuit Court judge in a case stated arising from an appeal against an order to estreat bail and forfeit money lodged in court.
The case concerned Mark Cronin, who had been charged with the murder of Georgina O’Doherty in May 1998 and later granted High Court bail. Catherine Cronin and Marie Cronin entered a recognizance as sureties with him in August 1998. Catherine Cronin lodged £10,000.
On 18 November 1998, Mark Cronin appeared in the District Court. After the prosecution failed to produce the Book of Evidence, the judge struck out the charges, and Cronin left court. Later that day, after Cronin was arrested on new charges relating to the same alleged offences, his solicitor applied to have the original charge sheet re-entered. The District Court did so and remanded him on continuing bail. The sureties were not present and had not been notified.
The Supreme Court said the strike-out and re-entry were separate steps. When the charges were struck out and Cronin left court, the recognizances had expired. The fact that the Book of Evidence had been available but was not in court because of a misunderstanding did not alter the effect of the strike-out.
The court answered “yes” to whether the recognizance expired on 18 November and “yes” to whether it again bound Cronin after he sought re-entry through his solicitor. The court said he had deliberately sought that result in his own interest and could not then argue that he was no longer bound by the recognizance.
It answered “no” to whether the recognizance again bound Catherine and Marie Cronin. They had no notice of the re-entry application and no opportunity to agree to renewed obligations. The court held they could not be bound by the continuing-bail order and their bail could not be estreated.
The judgment answered the legal questions referred in the case stated. The Circuit Court judge had reserved his decision on the underlying appeal pending the Supreme Court’s opinion; the judgment does not itself state the final disposition of that appeal.