Judgment: 2010-01-29 · Court archive

Supreme Court dismisses appeal to halt trial over health concerns

The Court ruled that the medical evidence did not require prohibition of the District Court prosecution, which may proceed subject to the trial judge’s duty to ensure a fair hearing.

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Dermot Sparrow (Applicant)
  • Judge Hamill (Respondent)
What

The Court ruled that the medical evidence did not require prohibition of the District Court prosecution, which may proceed subject to the trial judge’s duty to ensure a fair hearing.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Jigginstown
  • Naas
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court said a judge hearing medical evidence from one party was not bound to follow it, but had to assess it alongside all the evidence and make a judicial decision. It found no error in the approach taken by either Judge Hamill or the High Court. It distinguished this case from an earlier Supreme Court case involving an elderly defendant, serious ill health and a prosecution concerning events from many years earlier, saying that decision rested on the combined effect of several factors.

The Supreme Court has dismissed Dermot Sparrow’s appeal seeking to stop his District Court trial, rejecting the argument that his heart condition made proceeding with it unfair or put his life at risk. The Court did not decide whether he was guilty of the charges, and the trial has not yet taken place.

Sparrow faces two summary charges concerning a Foot and Mouth Disease form allegedly issued and offered at Jigginstown, Naas, on 9 April 2001. The charges were brought under the Diseases of Animals Act. In 2007, District Judge Hamill heard medical evidence, including testimony from Sparrow’s cardiologist, Dr David Moore, and decided the case should proceed. Hamill adjourned the matter for two months to fix a trial date.

Sparrow then sought judicial review, arguing that his health created a very high risk of sudden death at trial and a risk of an unfair hearing. The High Court refused the relief in April 2009. Sparrow appealed that decision.

The Supreme Court reviewed the medical evidence describing longstanding heart disease, hypertension and advice to avoid stress. Dr Moore’s evidence, as recounted in the judgment, was that further court appearances could result in sudden death. The Court also noted evidence that Sparrow continued limited veterinary work, drove and attended court professionally as an expert witness.

The Court said a judge hearing medical evidence from one party was not bound to follow it, but had to assess it alongside all the evidence and make a judicial decision. It found no error in the approach taken by either Judge Hamill or the High Court. It distinguished this case from an earlier Supreme Court case involving an elderly defendant, serious ill health and a prosecution concerning events from many years earlier, saying that decision rested on the combined effect of several factors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It said the District Court prosecution should now proceed, while making clear that the trial judge retains the duty and power to ensure the proceedings are fair and to assess Sparrow’s circumstances as they arise.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review