McLarnon (Michael), McKeown (Gerald) and Chakravartis’ (Leon) Applications (Leave stage) and in the matter of decisions of the Chief Constable of Police Service for Northern Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Girvan LJ |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] NIQB 40 |
| Date | 22 March 2013 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2013] NIQB 40 Ref: GIR8651
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 22/03/13
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
McLarnon, McKeown and Chakravartis’ Applications [2013] NIQB 40
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MICHAEL McLARNON,
GERARD McKEOWN AND LEON CHAKRAVARTI
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF DECISIONS OF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE
POLICE SERVICE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
_______
Before: Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ and Treacy J
_______
GIRVAN LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] This judgment relates to three separate judicial review applications which
raise a common point and one of some practical importance in relation to the proper
procedures to be followed in relation to the imposition and enforcement of fines on
defendants convicted of offences coming before the Magistrates’ Courts. The central
question relates to the lawfulness of warrants of commitment issued by the Northern
Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (“the Court Service”) under the arrangements
currently in place.
[2] As originally argued in the case of Michael McLarnon in the judicial review
proceedings which he initiated the central issue raised was whether the execution of
the warrants of commitment for non-payment of fines was lawful having regard to
the passage of time between the initial issuing of the warrants and their subsequent
execution. The court, having reserved judgment on the issues raised by the parties,
concluded that there was a prior question which required to be addressed, namely
whether the underlying warrants as issued were in fact lawful warrants. We drew
the parties’ attention to a number of questions which we considered fell to be fully
argued and considered when determining the lawfulness of the warrants as issued.
2
[3] Subsequently a number of other applicants instituted judicial review
proceedings raising interrelated questions. In this judgment we deal with the
applications which relate to the issue of warrants of commitment in the Magistrates’
Courts arising out of the non-payment of fines imposed in those courts. In a second
judgment we deal with the case of those applicants who had raised issues in respect
of the issue by the Crown Court of warrants in consequence of the non payment of
monies payable on foot of confiscation orders imposed by the Crown Court under
the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
[4] In the case of Michael McLarnon the applicant originally raised three
questions. Firstly, the question arose as to the period of time which constituted a
reasonable time within which the PSNI should have served the warrants which were
issued. The second question related to the methodology employed by the PSNI in
extending time for the service of such warrants. The third issue related to the
procedural steps deployed by the PSNI in seeking to keep under review warrants
which had issued. Counsel contended that there is a conflict of authority between
what the Court of Appeal said in Re McKenna [1998] NI 287 and the Divisional
Court in Re Tierney [2009] NI 77. We shall return to these issues at a later stage in
the judgment.
Factual background
Leon Chakravarti
[5] On 2 February 2012 this applicant pleaded guilty at Downpatrick Magistrates’
Court to the offences of common assault and disorderly behaviour. He was fined a
total of £200 and granted 15 weeks until 17 May 2012 to pay. On 17 May 2012 the
full balance of the £200 fine remained outstanding. On 25 May 2012 the applicant’s
£200 fine was passed to the NI Court Service’s Fine Recovery Team. Letters were
sent to the applicant on 25 May 2012 and 1 June 2012 advising of the outstanding
£200 fine. On 31 May 2012 the applicant was convicted again at Downpatrick
Magistrates’ Court for drugs offences and on this occasion was fined a total of £400.
The applicant was granted until 20 September 2012 to pay this £400 fine. On 11 June
2012 Downpatrick Court received an application from the applicant for an extension
of time to pay the £200 fine. On 21 June 2012 District Judge McCourt granted the
application and extended the time to pay the £200 fine to 20 September and the £400
fine. On 9 July 2012 a warrant of commitment was issued in respect of another
unrelated outstanding fine imposed by Belfast Magistrates’ Court on 13 April 2012.
From 16-20 July 2012 the applicant was in prison on foot of this warrant of
commitment in respect of the Belfast Magistrates’ Court fine. On 20 September 2012
the full balance of both the £200 fine and the £400 fine remained outstanding. On 28
September 2012 the applicant’s £400 fine was passed to the NI Court Service’s Fine
Recovery Team. Letters were sent to the applicant on 28 September 2012 and 5
October 2012 advising of the outstanding £400 fine. Because the £200 fine had
already previously been referred to the Fine Recovery Team for non-payment, on
this occasion a warrant of commitment was issued for non-payment of the £200 fine.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Paul Magennis and Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service
...(Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ, Treacy J) gave judgment in the case of Re McLarnon, McKeown and Chakravarti’s Applications for Judicial Review [2014] NI 73 (hereafter “McLarnon” or “McLarnon and others”). Girvan LJ gave the judgment of the court. While the initial judicial review application was ba......
-
Forde v Judge Doyle
...order of the Circuit Court Judge. 14 The Director further submits that the Northern Irish decision of McLarnon & Ors (Judicial Review) [2013] NIQB 40, which was relied upon by the High Court as an authority for finding the warrant was issued ultra vires, can be distinguished as it has a ve......
-
Forde v Her Honour Judge Alice Doyle
...rigid adherence to basic and fair procedures, by judicial function. 31 The applicant referred to McLarnon & Ors., Re Judicial Review [2013] NIQB 40. In that case, the High Court of Northern Ireland considered a similar set of circumstances in which an applicant having failed to discharge a ......