The Supreme Court has refused to extend the time available to the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal a High Court order which stopped further District Court proceedings against John O’Sullivan arising from alleged events on 6 June 1999.
Mr O’Sullivan had originally been summoned to attend the District Courthouse in Rathluirc on 19 January 2000. However, the actual hearing date was 18 January. He was convicted in his absence, but that order was subsequently set aside under section 22 of the Courts Act 1991.
The DPP then proposed issuing a fresh summons. Mr O’Sullivan obtained leave in May 2000 to seek judicial review aimed at stopping those proceedings.
On 8 November 2001, Mr Justice Kearns restrained the DPP from taking further steps in the District Court case or starting fresh proceedings arising from the same alleged events. That order was made following an ex tempore judgment, meaning a judgment delivered orally at the hearing rather than in a prepared written ruling.
The DPP decided on 3 December 2001 to appeal. However, the application seeking an extension of the appeal deadline was not brought until March 2002. An affidavit attributed the delay to the court vacation, relocation of the DPP solicitor’s offices and a change of counsel.
Mr Justice Francis D Murphy, delivering the Supreme Court judgment, held that those circumstances did not adequately explain a delay of more than three months.
The court also found that the affidavit supporting the application did not expressly establish, or necessarily imply, that there was an arguable ground of appeal. In addition, no note of Mr Justice Kearns’s oral judgment had been produced or agreed, despite the DPP seeking to have that decision overturned.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the application to extend time. The High Court restraint on further District Court proceedings remained undisturbed by this ruling.