The High Court quashed committal warrants issued for Patrick Dooley and Gavin Owens over unpaid fines, ruling that the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 applied because the warrants were issued after the Act came into force.
Mr Justice Eagar directed the Director of Public Prosecutions to initiate proceedings under section 7 of the Act in respect of each applicant’s unpaid fines. The judgment does not decide what further orders should follow those proceedings.
Dooley was convicted on four theft and fraud offences on 22 July 2015 and fined €500 for each offence, payable within 90 days. Owens was convicted of an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1961 on 3 July 2015 and fined €500, payable within four months. Both were liable to imprisonment in default of payment under the orders made at sentencing.
Dooley’s committal warrant was issued on 17 February 2016 by a District Court judge sitting at Naas District Court. Owens’s warrant was issued on 14 March 2016 by a District Court clerk for the Dublin Metropolitan District. The applicants sought judicial review to stop the warrants being executed, arguing that they did not comply with the 2014 Act. Leave to apply for review was granted in March and April 2016 respectively.
The Act provides for a hearing on notice where a fined person can provide information about their financial circumstances. Before ordering imprisonment for default, the court must consider alternatives including an attachment order, recovery order or community service order.
The State argued that the Act made substantive changes to sentencing and should not be applied retrospectively. The applicants relied on an amendment addressing earlier fines and argued that applying different procedures according to when a person was sentenced would be unfair and difficult to administer.
The judge noted that the fines’ payment periods had expired before the Act, but no warrant application was made until after it commenced. The applicants could have paid before the warrant applications. The court concluded that the Act applied to these proceedings, quashed both warrants and directed the DPP to begin the section 7 process. It did not order that either applicant be imprisoned.