The High Court has granted G. leave to seek judicial review of a District Court decision refusing to issue criminal summonses against members of An Garda Síochána. The permission is limited to a request to set aside that refusal; the High Court has not decided whether the District Court’s decision was lawful or whether any summons should issue.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 27 March 2023 after an inter partes hearing on the leave application. The dispute arose from G.’s March 2021 application under the common informer procedure, which allows a member of the public to ask a District Court judge to issue a criminal summons. G. was himself facing criminal charges arising from an August 2019 incident. He denies those charges.
On 10 March 2021, the District Court refused G.’s application, citing a risk of prejudice to criminal proceedings then in being, prematurity and abuse of process. The High Court said G.’s proposed judicial review raised an arguable question about whether the District Court had applied the correct legal test and considered matters beyond those identified in Supreme Court guidance. It also noted there was no direct case law on how the common informer procedure interacts with criminal proceedings against the person seeking summonses. Those issues are for the substantive judicial review hearing, not the leave application.
The court refused leave for the rest of the relief sought. It said the High Court could not direct the District Court to issue summonses, because that decision belongs to the District Court. It also found no arguable case against Blanchardstown District Court Office, noting that the application was listed after G. formally requested a hearing and that the office had no adjudicative or advisory role in the procedure.
Leave was also refused for a series of requested declarations and injunctions. The court said the grounds did not establish an arguable legal or factual basis for those claims. G.’s application to amend his grounds to allege that the District Court judge had prepared a decision in advance and conducted an unfair hearing was refused; the court found no proper explanation for the late addition and no arguable case on the material presented.
The High Court directed that reporting restrictions protecting G. and his minor children continue until the judicial review is determined or further order. The next step identified in the judgment was for G. to issue an originating notice of motion, returnable to the Judicial Review List on 15 May 2023. The separate dispute over naming the District Court judge remained before the Court of Appeal.