The High Court quashed a District Court exclusion order against Karl Zambra, finding that the hearing which led to it fell considerably short of the standards required for fair procedures.
Mr Justice Michael White ruled on 3 May 2012 that the hearing on 5 September 2011 was not conducted in accordance with constitutional justice. He granted certiorari quashing the order. The judgment addressed the fairness of the hearing; it did not determine whether the allegations of anti-social behaviour were true.
Dublin City Council had applied under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 for an order excluding Mr Zambra from his mother Emily Zambra’s home at 337 St Teresa’s Gardens, Donore Avenue, Dublin 8, and from the vicinity of the flats complex. The District Court made the order for three years, starting on 26 September 2011. It also prohibited intimidation or interference with the tenant and other occupants.
The High Court recorded that, on the first return date, Mr Zambra’s counsel sought an adjournment to obtain details of the allegations and prepare a defence. Further requests to adjourn, including one to call his mother as a witness, were refused. The Council’s housing manager gave evidence referring to Garda reports. The District Judge admitted their contents, including material in a fax received after the summons had been issued.
Mr Justice White said the court could receive evidence from a housing officer about Garda information that a person had been charged with specific offences, without calling the relevant Garda members. But he found that two matters described only as suspicions in the later fax should not have been admitted. Suspicion alone could not objectively support an opinion that there were reasonable grounds for belief. The court also held that Mr Zambra should have been allowed to call his mother, and that it was wrong to express a view about her credibility before she had been heard.
The judge said the hearing could have been made fair by providing particulars, allowing an adjournment for witnesses, or completing the Council’s evidence and then giving Mr Zambra time to respond and call witnesses. Although he had avenues to appeal or seek variation or discharge of the order, those options would not remedy the injustice of the original hearing in this case.