The Supreme Court has dismissed Kevin Tracey’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing judicial review of his District Court conviction for driving without due care and attention.
The conviction followed a prosecution before District Judge Tom O’Donnell. The charge, reduced by the time of the hearing, concerned an alleged incident on 30 August 2004. The District Court fined Tracey €400 and ordered €200 in witness expenses in default. He sought to have that order quashed.
Tracey argued that the District Court judge should have adjourned the case because he had sought statements from intended prosecution witnesses. He also argued that the summons was issued outside the six-month limit, that the evidence was insufficient, and that hearsay evidence had been admitted unlawfully.
In a judgment dated 30 April 2020, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the adjournment request had to be considered alongside the request for witness statements. The precise facts about Tracey’s request were unclear because neither he nor the prosecuting solicitor had the original letter or a copy. The court did have a response refusing to provide statements. A prosecution witness had travelled from England, and the charge before the District Court was at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. The Supreme Court found no indication that the District Court judge had exercised his discretion unfairly.
The Court also upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the summons application was made within time. The alleged offence occurred on 30 August 2004 and the summons application was made on 17 February 2005.
On the evidence, the judgment records that a Garda testified about a complaint that Tracey had driven on a footpath in a way that frightened a pedestrian. The District Court found a prima facie case after the prosecution evidence. Tracey declined the opportunity to give evidence or make a statement and took no further part in the proceedings. The Supreme Court said that any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence could have been pursued through an appeal to the Circuit Court, which would have involved a rehearing.
The Court stressed that judicial review is not an alternative appeal route and generally concerns issues going to a court’s jurisdiction. It found this case did not raise such a jurisdictional issue and dismissed the appeal. The judgment described the judicial review application as misconceived and noted that the case had remained in the lists for many years.