The High Court has dismissed William Ryan’s judicial review challenge to plans for him and Fiona Ryan to be tried together, finding that his application was not brought promptly. It also said the decision on whether the two should have separate trials was for the trial judge.
Kearns P. gave judgment on 20 May 2011. Ryan had sought to quash a Circuit Criminal Court order changing his trial date to 2 November 2010, and to prevent the Director of Public Prosecutions from prosecuting him and Fiona Ryan at a single trial. The judgment records that both faced arson charges arising from an alleged incident in September 2007; William Ryan also faced a charge relating to possession of a phone in prison. These were allegations, not findings in the judicial review.
The prosecution said it had always intended to try them together because the charges arose from the same incident and there was one Book of Evidence. It said the case involved 36 witnesses and mobile telephone mast evidence and could take at least two weeks. Ryan argued that there were separate returns for trial, made more than seven months apart, and disputed the basis for trying them together.
The court concluded that Ryan knew by 14 January 2010 that the District Court judge intended the two accused to be tried on the same date. It said that intention was expressed on at least three hearing dates, and that separate trial dates had been set because of a prosecution error about the correct date. Ryan’s application for leave was made on 28 July 2010. The court found he had not explained the delay and had failed to act promptly or within the six-month period cited in the judgment.
The judge criticised the prosecution’s handling of requests for a copy of the indictment, which it was obliged to lodge and serve as soon as possible after an accused was returned for trial. But Ryan had identified no specific prejudice caused by the omission, the court said.
On joinder, the judgment distinguished Ryan’s case from a precedent involving consolidation of separate indictments against one accused. It held that both accused had been validly returned for trial and that the Circuit Criminal Court had jurisdiction to try them. Whether they should be tried together or separately was a matter for the trial judge’s discretion, the court said, and was not suitable for judicial review in the circumstances. The application was dismissed.