The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of her District Court conviction for two public order offences, finding that her complaints should be addressed through her pending appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 16 May 2024, Ms Justice Hyland said the material presented did not show an arguable case that the District Court proceedings had been so fundamentally flawed as to deprive the applicant of a trial in due course of law. The court refused leave; it did not determine the merits of the conviction through a judicial review hearing.
The applicant was convicted on 1 February 2024 of offences arising from an incident at Store Street Garda station on 15 March 2023. She received a three-month prison sentence, suspended for two years subject to conditions. Those included reporting to probation, attending psychotherapy and education courses, not attending or loitering outside the station except in specified circumstances, and having no direct or indirect contact with specified Garda members.
She had appealed her conviction to the Circuit Court. The judgment said an order for disclosure had been made in that appeal and that it was listed for mention on 4 July. The applicant sought judicial review in part to quash her conviction and have the case reheard, and to stay the Circuit Court appeal while the judicial review was pending.
Her complaints included alleged failures to disclose CCTV footage and other material, limits on her cross-examination of Garda witnesses, the trial judge’s management of the hearing, the absence of a disability access officer, and the conditions attached to her suspended sentence. These were allegations and submissions by the applicant, not findings that the alleged failures had occurred.
Justice Hyland said evidence-related complaints could be considered in the Circuit Court appeal, which was the more appropriate route for them. She also found that the applicant had not identified an arguable basis for claiming the trial judge’s conduct, including managing cross-examination and the trial timetable, amounted to a fundamental breach of fair procedures. The court likewise found no arguable basis for the disability-access complaint to justify quashing the conviction, and considered challenges to the sentence conditions suitable for appeal.
The judge made no order as to costs and directed that the matter be listed for mention on the next available judicial review date, 4 June 2024.