Supporting Documents:
054-2019 White v The Governor of Mountjoy Prison AFL Web.pdf 54-2019 Resp Notice.pdf

BETWEEN

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 16th January, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 16th January, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 12th March, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 22nd March, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

General considerations
1 The general principles applied by this court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 December 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O’Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

2 The facts in this matter are set out in detail in the judgment of the High Court (Noonan J.) of 6 November 2017, the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 16 January 2019, and in the application for leave to appeal filed by the applicant and the respondent’s notice. The application for leave filed and the respondent’s notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law), and in the circumstances, it is sufficient to recount the facts in outline. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.

Decision
3 The fundamental issue in these proceedings arises by reason that the applicant, having pleaded guilty to a number of road traffic offences (including drunk driving, dangerous driving, and driving without insurance) failed to appear for sentence, and after two adjournments was sentenced in his absence by the imposition of a two-month prison sentence in respect of the charge of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant contrary to s. 4(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. A committal warrant was issued in the applicant’s absence on 10 December 2014. The committal warrant is at the centre of these proceedings.

4 On 19 January 2015, the applicant commenced judicial review proceedings seeking an order of certiorari quashing the orders made in the District Court and the committal warrant. Certiorari was refused by the High Court on 26 May 2016, and the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 14 June 2017.

5 The present issue arises because when the judicial review proceedings had been commenced, the applicant sought and obtained a stay on the execution of the committal warrant. Indeed, solicitors for the applicant wrote to An Garda Síochána on 17 February 2015, drawing specific attention to the stay and seeking confirmation that the applicant would not be approached by members of An Garda Síochána in relation to the committal warrant until the judicial review proceedings were finalised.

6 After the dismissal of the appeal in the judicial review proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the court was invited by the applicant to continue the stay on the execution of the committal warrant until 31 July 2017.

7 Accordingly, the gardaí sought the reissuance of the committal warrants, and on 5 July 2017, the District Court reissued the warrant for a period of six months from the date of issuance. The reissued warrant was executed by agreement on 8 August 2017, and the applicant was lodged in Mountjoy Prison. On 10 August 2017, however, he sought an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention under Article 40 of the Constitution and was released on bail.

8 The basic contention of the applicant was that his committal to Mountjoy Prison was invalid because it was said the original warrant was spent, and the only jurisdiction to reissue it was to be found in s. 33 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 (“the 1851 Act”), which permitted the reissuance of warrants where the person to whom the warrant was addressed was unable to find the person against whom the warrant had been issued. The application for an inquiry into his detention was dismissed by the High Court, and on appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the reissuance of the warrant was lawful. The applicant contends that the only basis for the reissuance of a warrant is the jurisdiction contained in s.33 of the 1851 Act, and that the decision of the Court of Appeal departs from the decision of this court in Buckley v. Hamill [2016] IESC 42, [2017] 1 I.R. 227.

9 The Court of Appeal found that the reissuance of the warrant was a consequence, and corollary, of the stay imposed on the execution of the warrant in the judicial review proceedings. The proceedings do not raise any issue of general public importance, nor has it been established that it is in the interests of justice that there should be an appeal to this court.

And it is hereby so ordered accordingly.