The Court of Appeal has restored a Blanchardstown District Court decision refusing an anonymised man permission to issue private prosecution summonses against several gardaí arising from an incident at Liffey Valley Shopping Centre.
The man, identified as Mr G, had himself been charged with public order offences after an altercation with gardaí on August 25, 2019. Those charges included threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, failure to comply with a Garda direction and refusal to give his name and address.
In February and March 2021, while that prosecution remained pending, Mr G sought to use section 10 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 to issue summonses against gardaí. His proposed allegations included assault, false imprisonment, withholding information and making gain or causing loss by deception.
A District Court judge refused the applications on March 10, 2021, finding that they were premature and an abuse of process. The judge had read the draft summonses and supporting informations and was aware of their connection with the criminal proceedings already pending against Mr G.
The High Court later quashed that decision in September 2024, holding that the District Court had not given adequate reasons, and ordered a fresh hearing.
The Court of Appeal held that this was an error. Mr G had only been granted leave to challenge the District Court decision on a much narrower ground: that the refusal did not comply with the Supreme Court principles governing private prosecutions. He had never been granted leave to argue that the District Court’s reasons were inadequate.
The appeal court also examined the permitted ground itself. It found ample material supporting the District Court’s conclusion that the proposed prosecutions were not motivated by a bona fide desire to invoke the criminal process. The court pointed to their timing, their close connection to the prosecution already facing Mr G, attempts to work around what he believed was an 18-month limitation period, and unsupported allegations of serious offences.
The DPP’s appeal was therefore allowed and Mr G’s judicial review application dismissed. The court’s preliminary view was that the DPP should receive costs in both courts, subject to further submissions.