The High Court has refused an applicant’s request to extend the time for a judicial review challenge concerning his trial before the Special Criminal Court. The court ruled that the application was brought outside the deadline and would not proceed; it did not decide the challenge’s substantive arguments about the legal basis for the Special Criminal Court.
The applicant was sent forward for trial by Cavan District Court on 26 March 2020, after the Director of Public Prosecutions certified that the ordinary courts were inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and preserve public peace and order in the case. The charges included causing serious harm and false imprisonment.
The applicant sought declarations that the proclamation underpinning the Special Criminal Court was intended to be temporary and that its continued operation breached constitutional requirements. He argued that the court had existed under a 1972 proclamation for more than 49 years. The respondents disputed that interpretation, but the High Court did not determine it.
The judicial review application was filed on 14 August 2020. Under the court rules, the deadline to challenge the March decision had expired on 25 June. The applicant argued that delays in receiving the DPP’s reasons and difficulties arranging a consultation with him in prison during the Covid-19 pandemic justified extending time. A video consultation scheduled for 16 July was cancelled shortly before it was due to begin; another took place on 11 August.
The court found there was no evidence that the applicant or his solicitor had considered this particular challenge, or tried and been prevented from consulting, during the three-month period. It also found that the DPP’s reasons, provided on 19 June, were separate from the legal challenge to the continued existence of the Special Criminal Court. The applicant could have brought the challenge within time while separately considering whether to pursue a case about the reasons.
The court was not satisfied that there was good and sufficient reason to extend the deadline, or that the circumstances causing the delay were outside the applicant’s control or could not reasonably have been anticipated. It refused the reliefs sought because the application was late and declined to extend time. The parties were given four weeks from receipt of the judgment to make written submissions on the form of the final order and any ancillary matters.