THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Record No. 273 J.R. of 2002.

Between:
MARTINA O’CONNOR 
(a minor suing by her father and next friend 
MARTIN O’CONNOR)
Applicant
and
DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES PAUL McDONNELL
Respondent
and
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Notice Party
Judgment of Mr. Justice Aindrias Ó Caoimh delivered the 15th day of May, 2002.

This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the respondent made on the 13th May, 2002 whereby the respondent refused to entertain an application for bail made by the infant applicant’s solicitor in circumstances where he considered that by reason of the provisions of s. 89 of the Children Act, 2001 he did not have jurisdiction to grant bail to an infant charged before the District Court.
	The infant applicant is 15 years of age and stands charged with a number of offences of an apparently minor nature and has pleaded guilty to these charges.  Therefore the matter was adjourned to the 9th May, 2002 to enable reports to be prepared for the court and to enable the court to establish what if any support services could be put in place to meet the needs of the infant applicant.  The applicant has been remanded to Oberstown Girls Centre and the respondent apparently indicated initially on the 9th May that he considered that he not have jurisdiction to admit the applicant to bail by reason of the provisions of s. 89 of the Children Act, 2001 which provides:
“89 – Section 5 (Payment of moneys into court) of the Bail Act, 1997, is amended by the addition of the following sub-section
‘(4) This section shall not apply in relation to a person under the age of 18 years’.”

Section 5 of the Act of 1997 was enacted to provide essentially that an amount of at least one third of any recognisance entered into by a person in connection therewith has been paid into court.
This was a new provision in the bail law enacted in 1997 and the fact that it does not apply to minors by virtue of the Act of 2001 is such that the District Court is not deprived of jurisdiction to admit a minor to bail but is absolved from the application to any such application of the provisions of s. 5 of the Bail Act.
I am concerned to learn that the respondent judge did not accept the submissions put forward by the legal representatives who appeared before him on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions and indeed on behalf of the infant to the effect that he had misconstrued the section in concluding that it deprived him of jurisdiction to grant the applicant bail.
	During the currency of these proceedings the applicant was admitted to bail in a nominal amount in circumstances of a consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions to the applicant being admitted to bail.
	I conclude that the respondent wrongfully declined jurisdiction and accordingly an order for mandamus will issue directed to him to re-consider the application for bail made on behalf of the applicant.  I will now remit the matter to the District Court to be dealt with at the earliest interval on notice to the Director or at least in circumstances where the Director is represented.  This matter should if possible be addressed today.