The High Court has refused Sean Conlan’s application for judicial review of the Circuit Court decision that dismissed his appeal against District Court convictions for assault causing harm and an offence under firearms and offensive weapons legislation.
Mr Justice Barr held that the Circuit Court appeal was a full rehearing, at which Mr Conlan retained the presumption of innocence and the prosecution had to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court found that, read as a whole, the Circuit Court judge’s judgment showed she applied that standard, despite an opening sentence suggesting she had to be satisfied of guilt before overturning the conviction.
The convictions arose from an incident on 23 August 2015 at Conlan’s Bar in Ballybay. The judgment says the prosecution case was that Mr Conlan deliberately broke a glass and used it to cut Enda Duffy’s arm. At the Circuit Court rehearing in October 2018, Judge McDonnell dismissed the appeal and affirmed the fine imposed in the District Court.
Mr Conlan argued in the judicial review that the judge’s wording showed she had applied the wrong test and that she had not given adequate reasons for her decision. He also argued that she had not made specific findings about how the injury occurred. The Director of Public Prosecutions accepted that the opening wording was a “slip of the tongue”, but submitted that the judgment as a whole showed the correct test had been applied. The DPP also argued that the reasons challenge had not been included in the judicial review grounds.
Mr Justice Barr agreed that the reasons challenge could not be advanced because it was not pleaded in either the original or amended grounds. He added that even if it could be considered, the Circuit Court judgment gave adequate reasons. It summarised the evidence and made clear that the judge accepted prosecution witnesses’ accounts and rejected Mr Conlan’s evidence. The High Court said she was entitled to rely on the complainant and other witnesses, although the independent witnesses had not seen the glass break or the arm being cut.
The court also rejected the argument that the Circuit Court judge had to address an accidental injury defence. The judgment records that Mr Conlan had expressly disavowed that defence in his evidence, and that the judge referred to his account that the glass broke when he fell backwards.
The High Court refused all relief sought. It directed the parties to submit written observations within two weeks on the form of the final order, costs and any other matters arising. The judgment did not determine those matters.