The High Court has quashed a District Court ruling that refused an application by an anonymised applicant to issue summonses against four gardaí, and remitted the application for a fresh hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 16 September 2024, Mr Justice Barr found that the District Court judge had not given adequate reasons for deciding the application was premature and an abuse of process. The High Court did not decide whether the summonses should issue. That question returns to the District Court.
The applicant sought the summonses as a common informer under section 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851. He alleged assault and false imprisonment arising from his arrest and detention on 25 August 2019. At the time, he was facing District Court charges under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 arising from an incident at Liffey Valley Shopping Centre. Those charges remain before the District Court, and the High Court limited its account of the underlying events to avoid prejudicing those proceedings.
The applicant argued that he had supplied evidence of the alleged offences and had to make his application within 18 months because it concerned alleged summary offences by gardaí acting in the course of duty. He said the District Court ruling did not explain when the application should have been brought. The respondent submitted that the judge had acted within jurisdiction and could consider the unusual circumstances and the risk of abuse of process.
The High Court said the applicant’s sworn information contained prima facie evidence of the elements of the alleged offences, and that the Director of Public Prosecutions had been put on notice. It held that the legislation did not bar a person facing prosecution from seeking summonses against gardaí involved in that prosecution. But the High Court did not rule that such applications must be granted or that this application was free of abuse. The District Court judge may refuse it on that ground, provided clear reasons are given.
The High Court clarified that the District Court judge had not refused the application because issuing summonses would prejudice the pending criminal case. Rather, the judge had declined to examine the underlying events in detail because doing so might prejudice that case.
The ruling of 10 March 2021 was quashed and the application remitted for a fresh District Court hearing. The High Court directed the parties to provide written submissions on the terms of the final order and costs within two weeks. The matter was listed for mention on 24 October 2024 to make final orders.