The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Fahy’s appeal against a High Court refusal to let him bring judicial review proceedings over six charges of failing to file tax returns for the years 2009 to 2015.
In a judgment delivered on 28 June 2018, President of the Court of Appeal Birmingham said the High Court judge was correct to find that no arguable ground for judicial review had been shown. The appeal was from an order made on 24 April 2017 refusing leave on an ex parte application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal; it did not decide the underlying criminal charges.
The judgment records that the charges began with summonses returnable to Trim District Court in October 2014, for which there was no evidence of service and no order was made. After further proceedings, Fahy was sent forward for trial in September 2016. At a later Circuit Criminal Court listing in Trim, he disputed jurisdiction on the basis that he had not been served with the Book of Evidence. The court directed that another copy be provided as a courtesy.
Fahy argued that he might not have received full disclosure under the Director of Public Prosecutions’ Prosecution Guidelines. The Court of Appeal said disclosure was a matter for the trial judge, not judicial review. He also sought proof that the State Solicitor for County Meath was authorised to prosecute on behalf of the DPP. The court said section 4(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 meant no further proof was required and, in any event, the issue was not appropriate for judicial review.
The judgment also rejected the argument that the absence of identified victims undermined the charges, explaining that revenue offences involving failure to file returns are offences against society as a whole. On service of the Book of Evidence, it said legislation allows extensions and that failure to meet the 42-day time limit does not invalidate a return for trial.
Fahy declined to make submissions at the appeal hearing. The judgment records that the Supreme Court had declined leave for a further appeal concerning the earlier refusal to join the Irish Human Rights Commission. The Court of Appeal noted that the threshold for leave to seek judicial review was low, but concluded no arguable ground had been made out.