The High Court has refused to stop the prosecution of a veterinary surgeon who argued that the stress of trial could put his life at risk.
In a judgment delivered on 1 April 2009, Mr Justice Sheehan refused the relief sought by Dermot Sparrow, who faced two summary charges pending before Naas District Court. The charges alleged that he issued and offered a foot and mouth disease form in April 2001, contrary to animal disease legislation. They remained allegations; the High Court judgment did not determine whether the offences had been committed.
Sparrow sought judicial review after Judge Hamill ruled in the District Court that the trial should proceed. He asked the High Court to prohibit the prosecution and quash that decision. A stay had been placed on the District Court proceedings while the judicial review application was pending.
Sparrow’s cardiologist, Dr David Moore, gave evidence at the District Court hearing. As summarised in the High Court judgment, Moore described Sparrow’s significant coronary disease, prior cardiac incidents and unexplained collapses. He said further court appearances could result in sudden death, though he could not quantify that risk; he also described the risk of heart failure as 50 per cent. The prosecution did not seek an independent medical examination after being offered access to medical records and the opportunity to arrange one.
For Sparrow, counsel argued that the medical evidence made a trial unfair and that his health and constitutional rights required the court to intervene. The respondents argued that Judge Hamill was entitled to proceed, pointing to evidence that Sparrow continued to work part-time, drive and give evidence in court cases. They also relied on the District Court judge’s consideration of the cardiologist’s evidence and the opportunity for the judge to question him.
Justice Sheehan distinguished the case from a Supreme Court decision involving an 87-year-old facing allegations about events more than 36 years earlier. He noted that Sparrow was 66, continued those activities, and faced charges brought within two years of the events alleged. The memory difficulties associated with a very old case did not arise in the same way, he said. He also noted that Judge Hamill had heard and considered the medical evidence.
The High Court concluded that these differences meant it was not appropriate to grant relief. It refused the orders sought. The judgment did not decide the charges or prevent the District Court from proceeding with the trial. It also noted that a trial judge could discontinue or postpone proceedings if matters arising during the trial made the process unfair.