The High Court refused a man’s third set of judicial review proceedings concerning a 1993 District Court conviction and separate road traffic charges. Mr Justice T.C. Smyth refused both certiorari and prohibition, finding the proceedings oppressive, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process. The judgment did not determine the Section 56 charges, which had been listed for hearing in the District Court.
The man had been convicted in Donegal District Court on 22 December 1993 on a number of charges, including dangerous driving, and was disqualified from driving for 15 months from 1 March 1994. His appeal was heard by the Circuit Court in February 1997, and its order confirmed the District Court order.
The separate Section 56 charges concerned alleged uninsured driving on four occasions in 1994. The judgment records that they were listed for hearing in May 1999 and were before the District Court on multiple occasions thereafter.
The applicant argued that the Circuit Court had wrongly given effect to the disqualification after his appeal. The judge rejected his account that he believed the disqualification had been suspended. He found that an appeal brought within the usual time could carry an automatic stay, but an extension of time to appeal did not automatically do so. He was not satisfied that a stay applied in this case.
The applicant had previously brought two judicial review cases concerning the matters. The first was refused in 1996. In the second, the application to quash the conviction was refused in 1999; the judge in the present case found the third challenge could be treated as res judicata in that context. He also found that the applicant had not disclosed the second case when seeking leave for the present proceedings in 2000.
The certiorari application was brought more than three years after the Circuit Court decision, beyond the six-month limit. The judge found it was neither prompt nor supported by a valid reason for the delay. He also refused prohibition, finding no basis to conclude that the District Court would fail to apply the law or that the charges could not proceed fairly. He said the applicant had previously chosen not to pursue that relief in the second case.
The judgment records that leave for the third case had been granted ex parte in March 2000 and that the proceedings were later dismissed for non-appearance in November 2002, then reinstated in December 2003. The High Court’s decision on 15 June 2004 refused the reliefs sought; it did not decide the separate charges.