The Court of Appeal has dismissed William Fitzgerald’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant him leave to seek judicial review of decisions made during his 2019 drink-driving trial in Fermoy District Court.
In a judgment delivered on 1 November 2022, Mr Justice Edwards, with Ms Justice McCarthy and Ms Justice Kennedy, held that the High Court was right to refuse leave. The court also dismissed Fitzgerald’s appeal against the costs order. It indicated that he should pay the respondent’s appeal costs, subject to adjudication if the parties could not agree, and allowed him 14 days to seek a short hearing on costs.
Fitzgerald had sought judicial review of the District Court judge’s refusal to order further disclosure and her decision to convict him. He also challenged the explanation given for his arrest and alleged that the judge was biased. The Court of Appeal stressed that the application was for leave to seek judicial review, not an appeal on the merits of the District Court’s evidential rulings.
The disputed disclosure included Garda station CCTV, data from Garda radio equipment that Fitzgerald said might contain GPS information, and a photograph taken after his arrest. He also sought to have the breath-testing machine examined. The Court of Appeal said the District Court judge had jurisdiction to decide whether the material sought was relevant and material. It found no arguable basis to conclude that those decisions were made beyond her powers, in disregard of the law, or unfairly.
Fitzgerald was allowed to view the station CCTV on the trial day. The appeal court noted that after viewing it, he did not ask the District Court to play it in court or renew his request for a copy. The court also observed that his request to inspect the breath-testing machine came late and was not pursued.
The Court of Appeal rejected Fitzgerald’s claims that the judge’s conduct showed bias, including his allegation that a third party was prompting her through a computer screen. It also held that the law did not require Gardaí to give him the exact wording of the statute or a printed copy when explaining his arrest; an explanation in ordinary language was sufficient if he knew in substance why he was being arrested.
The appeal court clarified that Fitzgerald’s separate appeal against his District Court conviction had been struck out after he did not attend to pursue it in the Circuit Court. It had not been reheard or affirmed there. The District Court conviction therefore stood. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal before it, finding no reason to overturn the High Court’s refusal of leave for judicial review.