Howard v. Early [2000] IESC 34 (4th July, 2000)

Howard v. Early [2000] IESC 34 (4th July, 2000)

The District Court order remanding the appellant in custody was made without jurisdiction as it was without her consent and exceeded the statutory maximum period. Although the order was spent, it had continuing consequences relevant to sentencing. A declaration should be granted to reflect the unlawfulness of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] IESC 34
Parties
Appellant: Sharon Howard; Respondent: District Judge Early
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Remand in Custody, Jurisdiction of District Court, Fair Procedures, Sentencing, Declaration, Prohibition, Habeas Corpus
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Remand in Custody Jurisdiction of District Court Fair Procedures Sentencing Declaration +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Howard

Appellant

District Judge Early

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to remand the appellant in custody without her consent and for a period exceeding 15 days
  2. 2 Whether a declaration should be granted in respect of an unlawful remand order that is spent but has continuing consequences
  3. 3 Whether further prosecution should be prohibited given the appellant's prior deprivation of liberty

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court order remanding the appellant in custody was made without jurisdiction as it was without her consent and exceeded the statutory maximum period. Although the order was spent, it had continuing consequences relevant to sentencing. A declaration should be granted to reflect the unlawfulness of the remand, but prohibition of further prosecution is not warranted as the District Court is expected to act within jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration granted that the District Court order of 18th March, 1999 remanding the appellant in custody was made without jurisdiction as it was without her consent and exceeded 15 days contrary to s.24 Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 as amended.
  • Refusal to grant prohibition or injunction restraining further prosecution.