The High Court has refused Stephen Manning leave to seek judicial review aimed at stopping a pending District Court prosecution against him, finding the application was an abuse of process.
The prosecution concerns charges of assault and threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour in a public place. The alleged incident took place at Castlebar Court Office on 4 April 2017. Manning sought an order prohibiting the District Court case, a stay while the judicial review was determined, and access to digital audio recordings of earlier court hearings.
Manning’s application alleged prosecutorial and Garda misconduct, bias by the District Court judge, inadequate legal representation, and a conspiracy involving State officials and others. Those were his allegations, not findings made in this judgment. The court grouped the grounds into several broad issues, including complaints about the judge’s handling of preliminary applications and the release of recordings.
The High Court applied the threshold for leave to bring judicial review: whether the applicant had shown a stateable, arguable case for the relief sought. It said most of Manning’s complaints about the conduct of the District Court proceedings could be addressed during a further hearing of the complaint. The judgment also noted that Manning had been granted legal aid.
The court focused on the claim of prejudgment and bias. Manning had sworn that the District Court judge said she would recuse herself. After seeking clarification from the respondents, the High Court was satisfied that the judge had decided not to continue hearing the case. The judge’s decision meant the bias complaint and related proceedings were moot, the court said. It also stated that there was no basis for the allegations of prejudgment or bias, and that dealing with preliminary matters did not itself prevent a judge from continuing with a case.
The judgment said Manning’s affidavits made extensive allegations about people and bodies, many of whom had little or nothing to do with the pending prosecution. It concluded that continuing the application was intended to air broader grievances rather than secure prohibition of the specific District Court proceedings. The court described that as an impermissible objective and an abuse of process. It also cited Manning’s decision not to engage when the matter was relisted and his request that the High Court judge recuse himself.
The court refused leave to seek judicial review. The judgment does not determine the criminal charges against Manning; it records the outcome of his application for leave and the court’s reasons for refusing it.