The High Court has refused Caroline Barnes leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging her District Court conviction over hedge trimming, finding that her application was filed outside the applicable three-month limit and that she had an alternative remedy by appeal.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 16 July 2024. The leave application had been made ex parte on 1 July. The court refused leave; it did not rehear the criminal case or overturn the conviction.
Limerick City and County Council issued a statutory notice dated 8 November 2022 directing Barnes to cut and trim hedges beside a specified section of public road. It required the work to be completed by 9 December. Barnes contended that the notice was not delivered to her address until 1 December and that the time allowed was unreasonable.
The Council sought a summons in January 2023 alleging non-compliance. After adjournments, the District Court heard and determined the prosecution on 2 January 2024. Barnes was convicted under section 70 of the Roads Act 1993 and ordered to pay a €500 fine and €3,000 costs. The formal order was drawn up on 18 January.
Barnes’ judicial review grounds challenged the notice deadline and the District Court’s admission of evidence about a fatal road traffic accident in 2015. She was also aggrieved by a newspaper report of the hearing. The High Court noted that the report was hearsay evidence in the leave proceedings and that Barnes had not disputed its account that the Council official said she was not to blame for the accident.
The court held that the three-month period ran from the conviction, and that proceedings filed on 23 May 2024 were about five weeks late. Barnes had not applied for an extension of time or set out reasons for delay in an affidavit. She told the court that she had believed the limit was six months and had needed to research the accident. The judge found those explanations did not justify extending time: she had seen and kept an article about the accident published in 2019, and the three-month limit had applied since 2012.
The judge also found that Barnes could have appealed to the Circuit Court, where the matter would be heard de novo. Challenges to service and the time allowed for the work could have been addressed there. The admissibility of evidence was within the District Court’s jurisdiction and, the judgment said, did not ground judicial review. No costs order arose because the leave hearing was ex parte.