The High Court dismissed Michael Berry’s application for judicial review seeking to quash his District Court convictions and sentences, ruling that his appropriate remedy was an appeal to the Circuit Court. Mr Justice Gilligan said he was not satisfied that the delay created a real risk of an unfair trial or justified stopping the criminal proceedings.
The application concerned a Naas District Court prosecution over two alleged assaults and criminal damage. The alleged offences occurred on or about 20 December 2003. Summonses were served on Berry on 13 July 2005, and the case was heard on 29 September 2006. The judgment described the interval from the alleged offences to the hearing as two years and nine months.
Berry had first asked the District Court judge to dismiss the prosecution because of delay. That application was refused, and the hearing proceeded, resulting in convictions on all three offences and prison sentences. Berry then sought judicial review. The High Court noted that he had also appealed to the Circuit Court, where he would be entitled to a full rehearing, including consideration of delay.
Gilligan J said the High Court was not a court of appeal from the District Court in these circumstances. He also found no specific prejudice such as a missing witness or document. Berry said he had difficulty remembering aspects of the alleged incident; the judge noted that he had known the nature of the allegations since receiving the summonses. The court acknowledged that the delay was undesirable but found no real issue of prejudice and no real risk that it would prevent a fair trial.
Berry also argued that the prosecution Garda’s request to confirm his presence in court, which led to him being identified before prosecution witnesses, made the hearing unfair. The judge rejected that claim, finding insufficient indication of the significance of the identification or of how it affected the hearing.
The court declined all the reliefs sought and dismissed the judicial review proceedings. It did not determine Berry’s Circuit Court appeal; the judgment said that appeal would allow a full rehearing.