1. The
Prosecutor was wrongly sentenced in the District Court to a term of
imprisonment of twelve months when the maximum sentence for the offence which
he had committed was three months. He appealed to the Circuit Court. He
apparently did not turn up for his appeal and the District Court Order was
affirmed. Ultimately, after a delay, the Prosecutor was arrested and committed
to Mountjoy Prison.
2. He
was an impecunious person and there was very considerable danger of a serious
miscarriage of justice. He could have served a sentence wrongly imposed upon
him but for the interference of the Solicitor and Counsel who subsequently
handled his case. He had no legal aid. They brought the case and they made
submissions before the learned trial Judge. One of the issues was whether the
learned trial Judge should remit the case to the District Court. The learned
trial Judge decided not to remit the case to the District Court and then he
said in view of the fact that the Applicant had pleaded guilty, he felt that he
had granted him sufficient equity. As my learned colleague Mr. Justice Barron
has pointed out, it is hard to follow the precise reasoning there because the
fact that a person has succeeded on a particular issue which arises as a
substantial issue in a case, would not normally be a reason for not allowing
him the costs. But even more important I think in this case is the fact that
this was a case where there was a potential miscarriage of justice which was
averted by the action of Mr. Condon BL and his instructing Solicitor, and it
had not been spotted by the representative appearing for the Director of Public
Prosecutions either in the District Court or in the Circuit Court, and under
these circumstances the only way of putting the matter right was by a State
side application. That application was brought, and was successful, and it
appears to this Court that under the circumstances the Prosecutor is entitled
to his costs in the High Court