The High Court has refused an application to quash a Circuit Court order affirming a conviction for driving with excess alcohol, finding that the location stated in the summons had been adequately described on the evidence before the Circuit Court judge.
Paul Callan sought judicial review of an order made by Hayes J, who had affirmed his District Court conviction. The charge related to driving or attempting to drive at Knockturnagh, Castleblaney, on 15 March 2020, with an alcohol concentration alleged to exceed the statutory limit. The High Court judgment does not set out the District Court sentence.
At the Circuit Court appeal, Garda Martin Mulligan testified that he attended an overturned van on the main road opposite the entrance to Knockturnagh estate, which lies within the townland of Tullanacrunat. He said Callan told him he had been driving the van when it overturned. The prosecution’s evidence also included a positive roadside breath test and blood samples taken at a Garda station. Those matters were evidence in the underlying proceedings, not new findings by the High Court.
The defence argued in the Circuit Court that there was no evidence Callan had driven at the location named in the summons. The judge rejected that submission, accepting the Garda’s evidence about the van’s location and ruling that the summons adequately described it. The prosecution did not apply to amend the summons.
In the High Court, Callan argued that the location was misdescribed and that the Circuit Court judge should have considered amending the summons under Order 38 of the District Court Rules. He said the failure to do so deprived the judge of jurisdiction. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the Circuit Court had found there was no defect to correct, and that judicial review could not be used to challenge that finding as if it were an appeal.
Mr Justice Barr said judicial review examines process and jurisdiction; it is not a rehearing on whether the lower court reached the right factual conclusion. Having read the Circuit Court transcript, he concluded that Hayes J had found there was no misdescription and was entitled to reach that view on Garda Mulligan’s evidence. As a result, the judge had no obligation to consider amending the summons.
The High Court refused all relief sought in the application. It directed the parties to provide written submissions within two weeks on the terms of the final order, costs and any other matters. The case was listed for mention on 16 February 2024 to make final orders.