The High Court has refused Stephen Manning’s renewed application for leave to seek judicial review to stop his ongoing criminal trial, ruling that the complaints he raised should be dealt with through the criminal process at this stage.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 11 January 2017, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the application was a reapplication after he had refused two earlier requests for leave on 21 November 2016. Those applications had sought to prohibit the trial, which was already under way.
The case arises from an incident at Castlebar District Court on 2 September 2015. The judgment says it was suggested that disorderly conduct occurred, prompting the presiding judge to rise, after which members of the public purported to conduct proceedings with one of their number acting as a “judge”. Manning was charged in relation to disorderly conduct arising from the incident.
At the time of the ruling, the trial had lasted 12 days and the prosecution case had concluded; the defence case had not yet begun.
Manning argued that his case involved exceptional circumstances warranting judicial review before the criminal process was complete. His complaints included alleged non-compliance with an order to release digital audio recording material, alleged inaccuracies in evidence for the Director, and an allegation that prosecution witness statements were prepared after listening to undisclosed recordings.
The judge said those complaints were primarily about the merits of the evidence and were matters for the criminal process. He did not decide whether the allegations were valid, and said his ruling did not prevent a later application for judicial review if a point of legality emerged at the end of the process. The question before him was whether judicial review should be available at that point; he answered no.
The court ordered the Director’s costs, but stayed that order until the criminal process concluded or any further judicial review proceedings against the Director, whichever happened first. The judge also said he would arrange for written records of this ruling and two earlier rulings to be prepared.