By Maeve Rowan
The High Court has set aside permission granted to Michael Grimes to pursue a judicial review challenge connected with the possible activation of a suspended prison sentence imposed at Cork Circuit Criminal Court.
Grimes pleaded guilty to revenue offences and was sentenced in Cork on May 17, 2018 to two and a half years' imprisonment, fully suspended for five years subject to conditions which he agreed to observe.
The Director of Public Prosecutions later alleged breaches of those conditions and issued a notice seeking to re-enter the criminal case. Grimes obtained leave from the High Court in June 2022 to seek judicial review, including an order quashing that notice and a constitutional challenge to section 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.
No stay on the Cork proceedings was granted, but the Circuit Criminal Court case was repeatedly adjourned while the judicial review remained unresolved.
The DPP subsequently applied to have the grant of leave set aside, arguing that Grimes had failed to disclose material information when making the original application without the other side present.
Mr Justice Barry O'Donnell agreed. He found that Grimes had not adequately disclosed earlier 2019 judicial review proceedings in which he had sought to quash his conviction and sentence. Those proceedings had been withdrawn and dismissed shortly before the fresh judicial review application.
The judge also found that Grimes incorrectly suggested there remained live Superior Court proceedings affecting the Circuit Court's jurisdiction and failed to disclose that he had legal representation in the Cork criminal proceedings.
A further issue concerned Grimes's reliance on a purported 2013 lease of premises known as Kanes of Granard. The court found he had not disclosed earlier litigation in which serious doubts had been raised about a related lease and circumstances surrounding the property.
O'Donnell J held that these omissions were significant and material. He stressed that applicants seeking orders without the opposing party present must give the court full and candid disclosure of relevant facts.
The 2022 grant of leave was therefore set aside. The judge's provisional view was that the DPP should receive the costs of the application, with final orders to be considered separately.