The High Court refused James Connolly leave to bring judicial review proceedings seeking an explanation for why a Circuit Court appeal had overturned one of his summary convictions. The court said the application was made more than three months after the order in question and that the request for reasons had been substantially met during the leave hearing.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Richard Humphreys on 15 February 2016, concerned Connolly’s fourth set of judicial review proceedings relating to summary prosecutions. His conviction for offending modesty had been set aside by the Circuit Court on 19 February 2014, after an appeal that had previously been heard and determined was re-entered.
Connolly said he had attended court expecting information about a penal warrant and was surprised when the conviction was overturned. He later sought a declaration of miscarriage of justice, but the Circuit Court declined jurisdiction. In August 2015, he wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking why the appeal had been allowed. The Director replied that she had no information about the matter. Connolly also wrote to the Courts Service and received no reply before bringing this application.
At the High Court hearing, counsel for the Director said an order of the Supreme Court relating to a separate intoxication charge had been placed on the District Court file for Connolly’s other charges. The similar nature of the offences had caused confusion, counsel said, leading to the appeal being reinstated and allowed. Counsel argued that the later constitutional ruling in McInerney v D.P.P. and Curtis v D.P.P. was unrelated to the original charge and came after the appeal had been allowed.
The judge reviewed a transcript of the digital audio recording of the 2014 Circuit Court hearing. It showed that the appeal was allowed with the consent of both represented parties. The judge concluded that confusion between the separate cases had led to the appeal being reinstated and allowed by mistake. Although some details could be further particularised, the broad sequence was apparent, and the judge found no present injustice.
The court refused leave primarily because the application was brought more than three months after the order. It also held that the request for an explanation had been substantially satisfied during the proceedings. The judge accepted the Director’s submission that the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 did not appear designed to apply to summary trials, and said that, even if Connolly’s interpretation were right, a miscarriage-of-justice certificate did not appear obtainable through judicial review in this application. No costs application was made by the Director.