The High Court has refused Sidney Sutton leave to seek an order prohibiting his retrial on assault charges, saying his application amounted to an attempt to circumvent decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The court also found no arguable case that the retrial would carry a real risk of unfairness that could not be managed by the trial judge.
In a judgment delivered on 19 March 2024, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the Court of Appeal had quashed Sutton’s convictions and ordered a retrial in 2021. The Supreme Court later refused leave to appeal that order. The High Court held it could not review those appellate decisions through judicial review proceedings.
Sutton had been convicted in 2017 of assault, assault causing harm to his then partner, and producing a knife at the family home. He denied the allegations and said his partner had been violent towards him. The Court of Appeal overturned the convictions after ruling that parts of his police interview relevant to his defence should not have been edited out. It ordered a retrial, where the jury could consider the unedited interviews.
Sutton argued that the prosecution was malicious, that evidence had been withheld or suppressed, and that lawyers, gardaí and judges had acted corruptly or against his instructions. He also relied on publicity, delay, stress and witnesses he said were unavailable. The judge said the allegations of malice and corruption lacked evidential support. She reviewed trial transcripts and digital audio recordings, including the recording Sutton said would confirm an exchange about a forensic report, and found it did not support his account.
The judgment said medical records showing injuries to Sutton had not been suppressed and could be put forward by the defence at retrial. His sisters remained available to be called, although they were no longer willing to support him. A neighbour he referred to was unidentified and unwilling to testify; the judge said the reported account was hearsay and could not establish an arguable risk of unfairness.
The court said questions about the conflicting accounts, the evidence and the effect of publicity were matters for the trial judge and jury. It refused leave both because it could not revisit the appellate decisions and because the grounds did not establish an arguable case for prohibition. Costs were awarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.