The High Court has refused the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application to quash orders dismissing two road-traffic prosecutions, finding that the District Judge had jurisdiction to dismiss them and that judicial review should be declined because of delay and the choice of remedy.
The prosecutions against Bernard McKenna and Stephen Jones concerned alleged offences under the Road Traffic Act 1961. Their cases were listed for hearing on 5 September 2006 after earlier adjournments at the prosecution’s request. The District Judge dismissed both complaints. The recorded orders said only that the complaints were “dismissed”; the judge had reportedly described them as dismissed “for want of prosecution”.
In Jones’s case, the prosecutor said the Garda who had operated the Intoxilyzer machine remained on sick leave with a broken arm. The defence said its client had already attended court once when the prosecution could not proceed and had received little notice. In McKenna’s case, the prosecution said the Garda needed for the case could not attend because of a family emergency. The judgment records that the cases had previously been adjourned peremptorily against the State. The prosecution challenged the dismissals as irrational and argued that the judge should have struck out the cases or allowed more time for legal submissions.
The High Court rejected the characterisation of the decisions as rulings based on delay between the alleged offences and the hearings. It found that the cases were before the District Judge for hearing, the prosecution witnesses were absent, and there had been earlier adjournments. The judge had power to dismiss a complaint in those circumstances. The court also rejected the fair-procedures argument: the legal authority the prosecution wanted to present concerned the form of the order, and the judgment found it would not have assisted the prosecution.
The court separately considered the way the DPP brought the challenge. The prosecution had first issued notices seeking an appeal by way of case stated, a procedure the High Court considered appropriate for the legal issue. It later chose judicial review, but the application for leave did not disclose the relevant correspondence and background about the case-stated appeal. The judge found no mala fides, but held that the alternative remedy, delay, and omissions at the leave stage justified refusing relief.
The High Court therefore declined the application for judicial review on all grounds. It did not quash the District Court orders.