Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

Last updated
Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Decided31 July 2014
Citation(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2014/S53.html
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Case opinions
Held that the Bail Act 1997 was not a complete code on the law concerning bail, as the courts have a common law power to revoke bail where necessary
Court membership
Judges sittingCharleton J, O'Donnell J, MacMenamin J
Case opinions
Decision byCharleton J
Keywords
Bail | Conditions | Variation | Breach | Revocation | Constitutional Law | Article 40 | Bail Act 1997

Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison, [2014] IESC 53 [1] is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. The Court decided that the Bail Act of 1997 [2] is not a code that explains all the rules about the law on bail. [3] The Act does not replace the High Court's [4] full and original authority. It shouldn't be taken as meaning that the crime replaces the court's authority. The Act adds new legal reasons why bail shouldn't be granted and changes the existing bail laws. For example, the Act of 1997 added a new reason to deny bail. Before that law, bail could be denied if it was thought that the defendant could escape instead of going to trial. [5]

Contents

Background

In November 2013, Mr Roche was arrested and charged with violent disorder. He asked for bail in the District Court. His request for bail was denied, and he was kept in custody. He was then given bail by the High Court in December 2013. This was subject to certain rules, such as living at a certain address, keeping to a curfew, checking in every day at a certain Garda station, and not having any contact with his co-accused. His bail was taken away 3 months later when he did not follow these rules. [5]

Mr. Roche was given bail again. These rules were not as strict, which let him go on holiday to Portugal. There was a certain period of time when these rules were eased. His bail was taken away again when he went back to Ireland earlier than expected.

He didn't give his passport back to Kilmainham Jail. He also did not live at the address he said he would. The Garda asked for an arrest warrant. Roche told the Supreme Court that he had not broken the terms of his bail because the supposed violations happened when his bail conditions were temporarily relaxed. He brought proceedings under Article 40 of the Constitution [2] to be released from custody. [1] The judge held the bail conditions were breached in relation to residence, which resulted in him waiving his passport and curfew. [5]

Roche argued that the Bail Act 1997 [2] was a complete code for courts when dealing with bail matters, and completely excluded any jurisdiction in the Circuit Court to revoke bail. [6]

Holding of the High Court

Judge Mac Eochaidh agreed that any confusion about the terms of bail should be cleared up in favour of the accused. Even though he admitted this, he didn't find anything confusing about Mr. Roche's bail conditions. During a certain time period, the bail conditions [5] were less strict. Mr. Roche did come back sooner than planned. But when he got home, he didn't tell the police that he was there. He also didn't go back to the place where he was supposed to live. These conditions may have been broken on purpose, since Mr. Roche didn't explain why he broke them or why he didn't give any reasons for doing so. Judge Mac Eochaidh did not agree with the applicant's claim that the Bail Act of 1997 was a strict law. He found that the court had been given the power of revocation by common law, which it could use. [7]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The judgment of the Supreme Court was given by Charleton J.

The court held that the Bail Act 1997 does not amount to a code providing a full statement on the law on bail. Charleton J. stated that the Act of 1997 doesn't take away the High Court's full and original authority in bail cases. It also doesn't take away the court's authority in the trial of the crime charged." The main purpose of the statute is to introduce and process the new reason for refusing bail. In some places, it also amends the common law on bail. [1]

He also said that it was an unnecessary addition because, under common law, the accused can ask the court of trial or the High Court for bail as many times as they want, unless there has been a change in circumstances that is relevant and proves the need for bail. He also said that the High Court has full power and can be called on by either the person being charged or the government in any bail case. [8] The case of The People (AG) v. O'Callaghan [9] was used to prove that courts have the power under common law to take away bail. There is no statutory basis for this power.

The Court thought about whether the revocation of bail was a violation of the applicant's constitutional rights under Article 40. [2] The applicant didn't say anything about why he hadn't given a reason for breaching the bail conditions. [10] The Court looked at the case of The State (McDonagh) v. Frawley, [11] which said that the right that a citizen can't be taken away from their freedom unless it's "according to the law" doesn't mean that a convicted person must be released on habeas corpus just because his detention is flawed or illegal. [12] Charleton J. said that the case did not qualify for a remedy under Article 40.4.2. [13]

The appeal was dismissed and the order of the High Court judge was applied.

Roche (also known as Dumbrell) -v- Governor of Cloverhill Prison

Related Research Articles

<i>Attorney General v. X</i> Irish court case permitting abortion in exceptional circumstances

Attorney General v X, [1992] IESC 1; [1992] 1 IR 1, was a landmark Irish Supreme Court case which established the right of Irish women to an abortion if a pregnant woman's life was at risk because of pregnancy, including the risk of suicide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adrian Hardiman</span>

Adrian Hardiman was an Irish judge who served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Palles</span>

Christopher Palles was an Irish barrister, Solicitor-General, Attorney-General and a judge for over 40 years. His biographer, Vincent Thomas Hyginus Delany, described him as "the greatest of the Irish judges". He served as the last Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer from 1874 until his retirement from the bench in 1916.

Peter Mitchel Andrew Charleton is an Irish judge who has served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland since June 2014. He previously served as a Judge of the High Court from 2006 to 2014.

<i>Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne, [2015] IESC 46, [2016] 1 IR 92, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court clarified the impact of a lender failing to comply with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2010 on that lender's right to obtain an order of possession of mortgaged property.

<i>Engineering Design and Management v. Burton</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton, [2016] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court considered the Irish courts' ability to limit the right of access to the courts and, in extreme cases, to dismiss proceedings.

<i>Callan v Ireland & The Attorney General</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Callan v Ireland& The Attorney General,[2013] IESC 35; [2013] IR 267; [2013] ILRM 257, was an Irish Supreme Court case which ruled on the decision to commute the sentence of death imposed on Callan to penal servitude for 40 years without allowing for remission. Noel Callan had been sentenced to death in 1985 but had his sentence commuted to 40 years of penal servitude by the President of Ireland, Patrick Hillery. The High Court rejected Callan's appeal that he was eligible for remission. Callan then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Callan was indeed serving imprisonment and so by law could request remission of his penalty.

<i>Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny[2009] IESC 48, was an Irish Supreme Court case. The court found that a European extradition can be applied if the offense is very similar to an offense in Irish statute.

<i>Attorney General v Oldridge</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Attorney General v Oldridge[2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional.

<i>H v H</i> Irish Supreme Court case

H v H,[2015] IESC 85, also known as JMH v KH, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the husband was found to have vexatiously abused the court process by repeatedly pursuing legal action against his former wife. An Isaac Wunder order was made by the court against the husband which states that any legal proceedings against his wife and children will be halted. However, the court did not suspend all legal action from the husband; rather it ruled that further legal action would require a decision by a relevant court. This decision is significant because the Court established guidelines for when common law principles could be reinterpreted.

<i>OConnell & anor v The Turf Club</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.

<i>Dundon v Governor of Cloverhill Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dundon v Governor of Cloverhill Prison, [2005] IESC 83, [2006] 1 IR 518, was an Irish legal case in which the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom by Irish citizen Kenneth Dundon. The case is important in Irish law as Kenneth Dundon was the first man to be extradited under the European Arrest Warrants Act 2003 in Ireland.

<i>Child and Family Agency v McG and JC</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Child and Family Agency v McG and JC [2017] IESC 9, [2017] 1 IR 1 was a case in which the Irish supreme Court ruled that where a detention was lacking in due process of law due to breach of fundamental requirements of justice, it may be challenged through an application for release under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus even in the case of disputes as to the custody of children.

<i>A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison[2006] IESC 45; [2006] 4 IR 88; [2006] 2 ILRM 481, the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that a finding that criminal legislation is unconstitutional need not render existing convictions void.

<i>AMS v Minister for Justice and Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2015] 1 ILRM 170; [2014] IESC 65, was an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that Section 18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 allowed the Minister of Justice to assess the potential financial strain that a refugee's dependents would place on the State while deciding on an application for entry.

<i>Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison [2014] IESC 54 was a case in which the Irish supreme court ruled that, ordinarily, a Court order detaining a convicted individual that is not prima facie invalid should only be challenged through an appeal of the conviction or an application for judicial review rather than through an application for release under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus.

<i>Hickey v McGowan & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Hickey v McGowan & ors, [2017] IESC 6 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. This case concerns child abuse and vicarious liability. The second defendant sexually abused the plaintiff in class, in the presence of the other students. This happened at least once a week. Four boys who witnessed the abuse in the class gave evidence, which was accepted by the High Court. It was determined that there must be a "close connection" between the wrongful act and the actions that one had engaged the offender to perform in order for one to be made liable for the act of another.

<i>OFarrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Farrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison, [2016] IESC 37, [2016] 3 IR 619 is a reported Irish Supreme Court decision. The Court, split four-three dismissed an appeal from the State over the release of three dissident prisoners. According to Section 9 of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995, the Court ruled that it did not have the right to increase the prison sentences of three people who had been sent from England to Ireland to finish their sentences. This case is important as it showed a flaw in the way the Irish prison system carried out prison sentences handed down by courts in other countries. This led to the early release of a number of prisoners.

<i>T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2014] IESC 29; [2014] 4 IR 277 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision, where the court considered if Section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 was similar to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness under EU law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2014] IESC 53, 31 July 2014, retrieved 2023-03-06
  2. 1 2 3 4 Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2023-03-06.
  3. "Roche v Governor of Cloverhill Prison: Bail Act 1997 is not a complete code on the law on bail" . Retrieved 21 October 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2023/02/AR-2014-eng-NDA-Update-2022.pdf
  5. 1 2 3 4 "Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison | [2014] IESC 53 | Supreme Court of Ireland | Judgment | Law | CaseMine". www.casemine.com. Retrieved 2020-03-27.
  6. "Case Overview - Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison". LexisNexis. Retrieved 21 October 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. "General Information on Enduring Powers of Attorney | The Courts Service of Ireland". www.courts.ie. Retrieved 2023-03-06.
  8. Mulcahy, Jane (April 2016). "The practice of pre-trial detention in Ireland" (PDF). Irish Penal Reform Trust. Retrieved 22 October 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. "People (Attorney-General) v O'Callaghan". vLex. Retrieved 2023-03-06.
  10. https://www.lawlibrary.ie/app/uploads/securepdfs/2021/06/TheBarReview_April2017_Web.pdf
  11. "State (McDonagh) v Frawley". vLex. Retrieved 2023-03-06.
  12. "Habeas Corpus". SCOIRLBLOG. Retrieved 2023-03-06.
  13. "Karl O'Brien v DPP and Others". vLex. Retrieved 2023-03-06.