The High Court has dismissed Brian Murphy’s application for judicial review seeking to stop the Director of Public Prosecutions from pursuing criminal proceedings against him. Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled that a 2015 settlement with the Revenue Commissioners did not represent that prosecutions would be discontinued or barred.
The judgment, delivered on 5 May 2022, concerned a settlement agreement to suspend High Court debt collection proceedings over Mr Murphy’s personal income tax arrears for 2013 and VAT arrears for January and February 2015. In return, he agreed to scheduled payments. The court found the agreement was confined to those arrears and the specific debt collection case. The Director of Public Prosecutions was not a party to it.
Mr Murphy argued that the agreement, and statements allegedly made during negotiations by Anna Lynch, a legal executive at the Revenue Commissioners’ solicitors, gave him a legitimate expectation that he would not be prosecuted. He said Ms Lynch had told him she would seek approval to remove a clause reserving the right to prosecute. Ms Lynch disputed that account.
The court held that the case as pleaded relied on the written settlement, which did not amount to an unambiguous representation that the Director would not prosecute. It also considered the additional argument advanced at trial, while noting that it went beyond the pleaded case. On the evidence, the judge found it was not established that Ms Lynch had promised to seek an agreement preventing prosecution. He accepted her evidence and said the contemporaneous documents did not support Mr Murphy’s account.
The court also found that the Revenue Commissioners could not bind the independent Director of Public Prosecutions through the settlement. The judgment addressed other arguments, including the deletion of recorded calls, but concluded they did not alter the outcome.
The proceedings were judicial review, not a criminal trial. The court’s order dismissed the application for judicial review; it did not determine the alleged revenue offences. The parties were directed to file submissions on costs by 30 May 2022, with costs arguments listed for 1 June.