The Supreme Court has ruled that a District Court could infer recklessness on a public order charge against Paul Clifford, even though the evidence was that a breach of the peace was not likely to occur. On a separate charge of failing to appear in court, the Court gave a conditional answer because the case stated did not say whether a District Court order admitting Clifford to bail was available to the trial judge.
Clarke J delivered the judgment on 25 October 2013, on Clifford’s appeal from a 2008 High Court ruling on questions of law referred by a District Court judge. The Supreme Court was not deciding whether the District Judge’s factual conclusions were correct on their merits. It considered whether those conclusions were open on the evidence.
The public order charge arose from an incident at Kilmainham Garda Station on 1 October 2006. Prosecution witnesses said Clifford was drunk and abusive, kicked and banged on the public office door while demanding his mobile phone, and threatened Garda Susan McLoughlin. Members of the public were present but, according to the evidence, drew away from the confrontation. The Gardaí accepted that none of them would have breached the peace in response.
The Court said the prosecution had to prove that the conduct was intended to provoke a breach of the peace or that Clifford was reckless as to whether one might be caused. The absence of an actual or likely breach was relevant, but not decisive. The question was whether the District Judge could infer that Clifford perceived a substantial risk of a breach and continued regardless. The Supreme Court held that such an inference was open on the evidence; it did not rule that it was the only conclusion available.
The second charge concerned an alleged failure to appear at Court 44 on 31 July 2006, after Clifford had been remanded on bail. The prosecution relied on evidence from McLoughlin, who said she found an outstanding bench warrant on the Garda PULSE database. She was not present in court on the relevant date or when Clifford allegedly entered the recognisance. The bench warrant, which was on the court file, was sufficient evidence that Clifford had not been present when his case was called.
Whether there was evidence that he had been admitted to bail on recognisance depended on the missing detail. If a District Court order admitting him to bail was available to the judge, the order could establish that element. If no such order was available, including where bail had been granted at a Garda station, the prosecution had not established an essential ingredient of the offence. The Supreme Court said the case stated did not provide enough information to give a definitive answer on that charge.