Boy (13) who could not raise £3 bail confined to court holding cell

A 13-year-old boy was confined to a holding cell in Dublin Children's Court yesterday because he could not raise £3 - required…

A 13-year-old boy was confined to a holding cell in Dublin Children's Court yesterday because he could not raise £3 - required under the terms of the new bail laws which came into force this week - so he could be released on bail. The State accepted it had no certified place of detention for him.

The High Court later released the boy when he signed a bail bond for £90. The boy's solicitor, Mr Pol O Murchu, agreed to pay the teenager's bus fare home.

Mr Martin Giblin SC had applied to the High Court for an order seeking the boy's release under Article 40 of the Constitution. The boy was charged with unlawfully taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent and twice failing to appear at Dun Laoghaire District Court.

Counsel said there was no lawful place of detention where the authorities could send a 13-year-old boy in these circumstances and he was being held by gardai in the Children's Court.

READ MORE

Mr Justice Butler made an order for the production of the youth before him yesterday evening.

At the resumed hearing, the judge said the boy should sign a bail bond for £90.

Mr Giblin said the boy had been brought before the Children's Court yesterday where the district judge fixed bail at £90. He said that new bail provisions had come into force which required the boy to produce one-third (£30) of the bail in cash. (Section 5 of the Bail Act, 1997). Unfortunately, the boy had no money. The district judge tried to help and reduced the bail to £9, but the boy still did not have the necessary one-third.

Mr Giblin said the boy's parents lived in Tallaght and the i Garda had been trying to contact them without success. He described the situation as "a problem with the new bail provisions which the authorities could not have anticipated".

Mr Justice Butler said that in admitting the boy to bail in his own bond he wanted to make it clear that he was making no criticism of the District Court. He was trying to deal in a practical manner with the situation which had arisen.

He adjourned the Article 40 application to Monday next.