The High Court has awarded the Director of Public Prosecutions her costs of a judicial review brought by Francis McGuinness, after rejecting his request to avoid the usual costs order against an unsuccessful applicant.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled on costs on 5 October 2026. He ordered that the DPP receive her costs of the High Court proceedings, excluding the extension of time application, with those costs to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. The court made no order as to costs for that application. The judge said the final form of the costs order would be discussed with the parties as necessary.
The judicial review concerned, among other matters, whether an orally pronounced conviction in a summary criminal trial had legal effect when the trial judge had not proceeded to sentence. The Supreme Court had granted leave to pursue the review on points it considered to raise issues of general public importance. The High Court ultimately rejected the applicant’s case in its principal judgment of 12 May 2026.
In the costs ruling, Mr Justice Ferriter considered whether the principles in *Little v Chief Appeals Officer* justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event. He accepted that the Supreme Court’s leave decision meant the case raised points of general public importance from that stage. But he concluded that the case, as ultimately argued, did not clarify an uncertain area of law or provide a contribution of systemic importance. He described the applicant’s arguments about the legal effect of an oral conviction without sentence as contrary to the accepted legal position, and found the case weak, pursued for personal advantage and wholly unsuccessful.
The applicant had also sought the costs of an extension of time application. The DPP withdrew her opposition on the second day of the judicial review hearing, after the court’s encouragement. The judge found that the application had not materially lengthened the hearing and was ultimately a makeweight issue. He made no order as to its costs.
The ruling also addressed earlier costs orders. The Supreme Court had ordered that the costs of the High Court and Court of Appeal between the applicant and the DPP be costs in the cause. The High Court judge said his order meant the DPP was also entitled to her costs of the Court of Appeal. Earlier costs orders in favour of the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána remained in place. The ruling did not disturb the costs orders concerning the Courts Service.