Kennelly v. Cronin [2002] IESC 77 (18 December 2002)

Kennelly v. Cronin [2002] IESC 77 (18 December 2002)

The recognizance expired for all respondents when the charge was struck out. It was revived for the accused (Mark Cronin) upon his own application to re-enter the charge, but not for the sureties (Catherine and Marie Cronin), who were not present, notified, or consenting. Natural justice precludes binding sureties without notice or opportunity to be heard.

Citation
[2002] IESC 77
Parties
Applicant: Superintendent Anthony Kennelly; Respondent: Mark Cronin; Respondent: Catherine Cronin; Respondent: Marie Cronin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated (supreme Court of Ireland) / Supreme Court Determination on Questions of Law From Circuit Court
Outcome
Questions answered: (I) Yes, recognizance expired on strike-out; (II) Yes, recognizance revived for accused; (III) No, recognizance not revived for sureties without notice or consent.
Legal Topics
Estreatment of Bail, Forfeiture of Recognizance, Revival of Recognizance, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction of District Court, Effect of Striking Out and Re Entering Charges
Criminal Law Bail Law Procedural Law Estreatment of Bail Forfeiture of Recognizance Revival of Recognizance Natural Justice Jurisdiction of District Court +1 more

Case Brief

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Superintendent Anthony Kennelly

Applicant

Mark Cronin

Respondent

Catherine Cronin

Respondent

Marie Cronin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated (supreme Court of Ireland) / Supreme Court Determination on Questions of Law From Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether recognizance expired when charge was struck out
  2. 2 Whether recognizance revived for accused upon re-entry of charge
  3. 3 Whether recognizance revived for sureties without notice or consent

Ratio Decidendi

The recognizance expired for all respondents when the charge was struck out. It was revived for the accused (Mark Cronin) upon his own application to re-enter the charge, but not for the sureties (Catherine and Marie Cronin), who were not present, notified, or consenting. Natural justice precludes binding sureties without notice or opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

Questions answered: (I) Yes, recognizance expired on strike-out; (II) Yes, recognizance revived for accused; (III) No, recognizance not revived for sureties without notice or consent.

Orders

  • Recognizance expired for all respondents on strike-out of charge.
  • Recognizance revived for Mark Cronin upon re-entry of charge at his request.