The High Court refused John Burke leave to seek judicial review of decisions made by a District Judge about trial dates for 121 criminal charges, finding that he had not established arguable grounds for the requested relief.
Mr Justice Edwards delivered the judgment on 9 October 2009, explaining a decision made after a hearing on 24 and 25 September. Burke had sought orders aimed at preventing Judge Mary Martin from hearing the cases and the Director of Public Prosecutions from taking further steps in the criminal-damage charge. The other 120 charges were prosecuted by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, who was not a party to the judicial-review proceedings.
The charges concerned alleged animal-welfare and carcass-disposal offences arising from events in 2006 and 2007, alongside one allegation of criminal damage to a car. They had been provisionally listed for a three-day trial from 30 September to 2 October 2009. On 3 June, Burke gave the District Court documents to support his contention that other court proceedings prevented the trials from going ahead. Judge Martin found that the documents did not establish a stay and confirmed the trial dates.
Burke alleged that the judge had ordered him to remain silent, shown bias, and consulted a solicitor about the documents. The respondents’ witnesses gave a different account, saying the judge had asked Burke not to interrupt or continue arguing after her ruling. After hearing affidavit and oral evidence, including cross-examination of two witnesses, the High Court accepted their account. It found that the documents showed no stay affecting the criminal cases and no evidence that the judge had sought the solicitor’s advice on the matter before her.
The judgment also considered Burke’s claim that another District Judge had already taken charge of the cases. The court said the evidence did not support that claim as to the animal-related prosecutions. As to the criminal-damage charge, it found that even if the other judge had heard some evidence, Judge Martin could still deal with procedural matters such as fixing trial dates.
The court also rejected Burke’s complaint about a later visit to court to seek a recognisance for an appeal. It said he had not been convicted and, under an earlier judgment, recognisances were required only to appeal a criminal conviction. The judge expressed doubts about whether the Circuit Court could hear an appeal against the procedural decision confirming trial dates, but did not decide that question definitively.
The High Court refused leave to apply for judicial review. It did not determine the 121 criminal charges; the judgment addressed only whether Burke had shown arguable grounds for the judicial-review remedies he sought.