The High Court has refused judicial review applications by Patrick Doran and Amanda Gilbert challenging a District Court judge’s correction of an order returning them for trial in Wicklow.
In a judgment delivered on 7 July 2010, Mr Justice McMahon ruled that District Judge Bridget Reilly had jurisdiction to correct the written order under the District Court’s slip rule. The correction addressed the accidental omission of a schedule of charges from the order made on 23 February 2007.
The applicants and co-accused had been returned for trial on charges including aggravated burglary, arson and hijacking a car. In May 2007, Circuit Court Judge Michael White declined jurisdiction because the written order did not set out the charges or attach a schedule. The High Court judgment records that he made no further order on the return.
The Director of Public Prosecutions later sought correction under Order 12, rule 17 of the District Court Rules, which permits accidental slips or omissions in orders to be corrected “at any time”. Judge Reilly made the amendments on 29 July 2009. Doran and Gilbert argued that the District Court had already lost jurisdiction, that the correction required a judicial decision in the district where the original order was made, and that evidence did not establish what had been ordered in 2007. Doran also argued that the reference to “the next sitting” had expired.
Justice McMahon rejected those grounds. He found that because the defective written order had not properly sent the accused forward for trial, jurisdiction had not passed from the District Court. He treated the correction as ministerial: it made the written record reflect the order intended in court. The judge also found the omission apparent from the missing attachment and concluded that the evidence did not establish that Judge Reilly had changed the original order.
The court held that “the next sitting” meant the sitting following the September 2009 amendment, rather than a fixed sitting in 2007. It also relied on an earlier Supreme Court ruling that a return for trial can remain valid for later sittings. The judgment did not determine the underlying criminal charges.
Justice McMahon refused the relief sought, including orders to quash the amendment and declarations that it did not give the Circuit Court jurisdiction. He did not address Gilbert’s additional argument about issue estoppel in criminal cases, saying it was unnecessary to do so. The ruling concerned the validity of the corrected return for trial, not guilt or innocence.