The High Court refused Kevin Nolan’s application to stop a District Court summary trial from continuing, holding that his judicial review challenge was premature and that the delay did not justify intervention at that stage.
Mr Justice Roderick Murphy delivered the judgment on 19 October 2007. Mr Nolan had sought an injunction preventing the Director of Public Prosecutions from prosecuting the case and preventing District Judge Patrick Brady from making further orders. The case concerned charges arising from an alleged incident on 2 December 2002. The District Court trial had begun and was due to resume on 1 June 2005, after an eight-month adjournment.
Mr Nolan argued that the overall delay exceeded two years and six months and breached his right to a trial with reasonable expedition. He said witnesses might be unavailable or their memories might fade, and described financial strain, business disruption, anxiety and psychological distress. His account also alleged that a garda assaulted him during his arrest. Garda Collette Dennehy disputed that account in an affidavit, saying she did not see an assault and that Mr Nolan’s forehead graze resulted from a fall.
The DPP opposed the application, arguing that the trial had commenced and had not concluded, that exceptional circumstances for High Court intervention were absent, and that Mr Nolan had not first asked the District Court judge to dismiss the case for delay or irregularity. The DPP also attributed more than 14 months of adjournments to requests made on Mr Nolan’s behalf.
The High Court acknowledged a total period of 30 months from the incident and charge to the proposed resumed hearing, and described the further eight-month delay in reconvening as unfortunate. It found that illness and earlier witness availability contributed to delays, and that two-thirds of the 21 months before the September 2004 hearing consisted of adjournments sought by Mr Nolan. The court also noted that the later adjournment followed legal submissions about whether the alleged offence occurred in a “public place.”
The judge said no application had been made to the District Court judge to halt the trial because of delay. The court considered the challenge premature and contrary to the general principle that judicial review should not interrupt a criminal trial. It found no evidence that the District Court judge had acted improperly or would fail to conduct the case fairly. The application was refused; the judgment did not determine the underlying criminal charges.