There is no power to require juvenile offenders to have an adult put up bail money for them so that they can be released from detention pending an appeal, the Court of Appeal (CoA) has ruled.
In a decision which the CoA said "may have an impact on many criminal cases before the District Court", the appeal court upheld a finding that a juvenile who had been sentenced to four months detention should be released.
The juvenile had pleaded guilty in Trim District Court to several offences and when he sought release pending appeal of his sentence, he was required as part of his bail terms to have an adult put up a €150 independent surety.
A High Court challenge was then brought claiming the District Court had no power to require that an adult independent surety had to be lodged.
The Governor of Oberstown Detention Centre, where the juvenile had been detained, then brought an appeal claiming the High Court erred in its decision. The juvenile opposed the appeal.
Moot or pointless
By the time the CoA heard the appeal, the juvenile’s criminal appeal to the Circuit Court was due to take place and the issue involved was therefore moot or pointless.
However, as the detention centre had said that regardless of the legal challenge outcome it would not seek the juvenile's reincarceration, and because of the “systemic importance and relevance” of the case, the appeal went ahead.
Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, on behalf of the three judge CoA, found no error in a September 2021 High Court decision directing the juvenile's release after it was found the District Court had no power to fix an independent cash recognisance provided by an adult.
She said the common law permits broad powers concerning bail and bail terms.
However, she said the payment of a portion of monies into court as a condition of release is now entirely governed by statute, primarily the Bail Act 1997.
A requirement under that Act that there be a cash lodgement for bail in relation to minors did not survive after 2001, she said.
This was because the 1997 law was amended by the 2001 Children Act (Section 89) which stated the lodgement requirement "shall not apply in relation to a person under the age of 18 years,” the judge said.
She dismissed the appeal.
