The High Court has refused a judicial review application by Simona Cirpaci challenging the handling of an Electricity Supply Board Networks prosecution, ruling that her application was premature because the District Court had not convicted her or made an order.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 5 May 2017. Ms Cirpaci sought to quash an order said to have been made by a District Court judge on 4 April 2016, along with declarations concerning the summons and the conduct of the case.
The summons charged her with two alleged offences under the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, as amended: unlawfully interfering with an ESB meter and failing to take reasonable steps to ensure interference stopped. It specified 28 April 2014 as the date of the alleged interference. The prosecution’s disclosure included a report recording that date as when interference was detected, and a calculator putting the period of undercharge between 6 May 2011 and 27 April 2014.
At the District Court hearing, Ms Cirpaci argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the summons did not identify the District Court office from which it issued. The District Court judge rejected that argument and ruled that the court had jurisdiction. After the prosecution presented evidence, the defence also sought dismissal, arguing that the alleged interference had occurred around 6 May 2011 rather than the date stated in the summons. The prosecution did not apply to amend the summons. The judge refused the application to dismiss.
After hearing the defence evidence, the District Court judge said the ESB had proved its case, but made no order. At the defence’s request, the matter was adjourned to allow time for outstanding sums to be repaid. The judge said repayment would be to Ms Cirpaci’s advantage and that she was entitled to have an order made and appeal it if she wished. No conviction had been entered when the High Court considered the judicial review.
Mr Justice Barrett said there was no conviction order for the High Court to quash. He noted that the District Court proceedings were still ongoing and found no exceptional circumstances warranting judicial review before those criminal proceedings were completed. The High Court declined to grant any of the reliefs sought. The judgment did not determine the merits of the charges or resolve the summons arguments on their merits.