The High Court has refused all relief sought by Stephen Bennett in a judicial review challenge to his conviction for obstructing water meter installation work. The court held that Bennett lacked standing to bring his constitutional challenge and found no unfair procedure in the District Court’s handling of his case.
Bennett was convicted in the District Court on 21 September 2017 of an offence under section 12(1) of the Water Services Act 2007 and fined. The incident behind the conviction occurred on 4 November 2014 at 13 Villa Park Road, Dublin 7. The judgment recounts that it was argued Bennett and others obstructed GMC Sierra employees installing water meters, including by blocking a truck and the meter. It was also alleged that Bennett jumped on the meter when workers tried to work on it. He was subsequently arrested.
During the District Court hearing, after the State completed its evidence, Bennett’s counsel argued that section 12(1) created an absolute liability offence and that a right to protest should be available as a defence. Counsel sought a ruling that Bennett had no case to answer. The District Judge said there was evidence of offences and declined to direct himself at that stage. The judge offered time for counsel to consider the position and take instructions; the offer was declined. Bennett did not give evidence.
In the High Court, Bennett argued that the statutory offence was unclear about available defences and that the District Court had failed to explain why it did not address his submissions on mens rea and strict liability. At the hearing, however, he accepted that mens rea would be presumed to be an ingredient of the offence.
Justice Miriam O’Regan held that Bennett had not established standing to mount the constitutional challenge. He had decided not to give evidence in the District Court, and no defence had been presented there or in the High Court. The judge said the challenge could not be determined on a general or hypothetical basis without evidence showing how Bennett was prejudiced.
The court also rejected the fair procedures complaint. Bennett had not asked the District Court for reasons after its ruling, nor invited it to address specifically his assertion that no defence was available. In the absence of evidence from him, the District Judge could not make a broader finding than the ruling that there was evidence of offences.
The High Court refused all relief, including the requested order to quash the conviction. It did not set aside the conviction or make a finding on the underlying incident beyond the procedural and standing issues addressed in the judicial review.