The High Court has refused to overturn a District Court safety order after finding that Q.T. bypassed the ordinary appeal process and failed to establish serious procedural unfairness in the original hearing.
The safety order was obtained on September 24, 2024 by a woman initially described by Q.T. as his neighbour. During the High Court proceedings, however, it emerged that she had previously been his intimate partner, although their relationship had ended more than four years earlier.
Q.T. argued that the Domestic Violence Act 2018 should not have applied, that the District Court hearing was unfair and that the judge had predetermined the outcome. He had also unsuccessfully asked the District Court judge to state a case for the High Court instead of appealing the safety order to the Circuit Court.
In a judgment delivered on March 19, 2026, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty held that section 6(1)(a)(iii) of the 2018 Act expressly covers a person who was in an intimate relationship with the respondent before applying for a safety order. The legislation contains no requirement that the former relationship must have ended recently.
The court also rejected Q.T.'s complaint that he had not been allowed personally to cross-examine the complainant. Section 16 of the Act permits restrictions on personal cross-examination in domestic violence proceedings.
The judge found no evidence of bad faith by the District Court judge and ordered that the judge be removed from the title of the judicial review proceedings.
Most importantly, Q.T. had a full statutory right to appeal the safety order to the Circuit Court, where the matter could have been reheard from the beginning. Judicial review is generally a remedy of last resort and cannot normally be used to bypass an adequate appeal route.
The application for certiorari was therefore refused. The court's provisional view was that there should be no order as to costs.