The High Court set aside in its entirety an order that had granted John Burke leave to seek judicial review and stayed outstanding District Court prosecutions against him. It also struck out his motion to commit the State Solicitor and others for contempt.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 23 November 2010, dealt with two applications heard on 19 October. The Director of Public Prosecutions had asked the court to set aside an order made without notice by Mr Justice Peart on 7 May. Burke’s separate motion alleged that the application to set that order aside was contempt of court.
The earlier order allowed Burke to challenge hearing dates set for 18, 19 and 20 May 2010 for outstanding summonses, and included a stay on further District Court hearings. The prosecutions included animal-welfare charges and one charge of criminal damage to a motor vehicle. The judgment said about 116 summonses remained after five had been heard in 2009.
The DPP argued that Burke had not fully disclosed two earlier judicial review cases and the history of related stay applications. In one earlier case, the Supreme Court had refused a stay on District Court proceedings. In another, after leave was refused by Mr Justice Edwards, Burke appealed but did not apply to the Supreme Court for a stay. Justice Irvine found that the earlier orders and procedural history were material and that the information given to Justice Peart was insufficient. She concluded that, with full disclosure, he would not have granted leave for the relief in question or the stay.
The dispute over a stenographer was treated separately. The State Solicitor had undertaken to provide one for the relevant District Court proceedings, though Burke said he had not received the letter communicating that undertaking. Justice Irvine did not decide whether he had received it or whether any nondisclosure was bona fide. She set aside the part of Justice Peart’s order concerning the stenographer, finding that the undertaking removed the basis for staying the prosecutions on that ground. She also referred to an earlier decision rejecting the argument that proceedings are unfair simply because no stenographer is provided.
Justice Irvine found exceptional circumstances justified setting aside Justice Peart’s order in full. She held that the DPP’s motion had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction and struck out Burke’s contempt motion. The judgment did not determine the underlying guilt or liability on the District Court summonses.