The Supreme Court has restored leave for a man to pursue judicial review of his District Court conviction, after he alleged that a prosecution inspector knowingly allowed false evidence to be given. The court did not decide whether the allegation was true or whether the conviction should be quashed.
The man was convicted on 18 September 2001 of driving with alcohol in his urine above the statutory limit. He sought judicial review of the District Court order, arguing that the prosecution had procured his conviction through evidence about where a urine sample was taken.
According to an affidavit described in the judgment, a Garda witness said the sample was taken in a toilet in the medical room at Ballina Garda Station, with another Garda and a doctor present. The applicant’s solicitor later visited the station and said there was no toilet in that room. The solicitor accepted that the witness may not have deliberately misled the court, but alleged that the inspector presenting the prosecution knew the evidence was incorrect and did not intervene. These were allegations, not findings by the Supreme Court.
A High Court judge had granted leave to seek certiorari and an injunction against further prosecution. On the respondents’ application, another High Court judge set that leave aside, reasoning that the case involved disputed facts, the District Court had acted within its jurisdiction, and an appeal was the appropriate route.
The Supreme Court said the High Court had been mistaken to treat the facts as disputed at that stage: only the applicant’s version was before it, and it should normally be assumed true when deciding whether the claim is arguable. The court restated that judicial review leave requires an arguable case and that review must be the only effective remedy, including being more effective than an alternative. A granted leave order can be set aside, but that power should be used sparingly and only in a plain case.
The Supreme Court said it was not yet clear whether an appeal to the Circuit Court would be inadequate, or whether the false-evidence allegation would ultimately be established. It held only that the judicial review claim had not been shown to be unarguable and that leave plainly should not have been refused. It allowed the appeal and set aside the order discharging leave. The substantive judicial review remained undecided.