The High Court has refused the National Transport Authority (NTA) more time to transmit an appeal arising from the acquittals of three respondents charged with providing an unlicensed public bus service. The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed as inadmissible because of delay.
The charges concerned an alleged bus service to a music festival at Fairyhouse Racecourse on 30 September 2017. The District Court acquitted the respondents on 21 March 2019. The NTA then sought to appeal by way of case stated.
A signed case stated reached the NTA on 1 October 2020, about 18 months after the acquittals. The NTA was required to transmit it to the High Court Central Office within 14 days and notify the intended appeal to the respondents. Paperwork lodged on 12 October 2020 was rejected. The NTA said the Central Office wrongly sought documents appropriate to a consultative case stated rather than an appeal.
The NTA did not apply to the High Court for directions after the rejection. Instead, it corresponded with the Central Office, and issued its motion for an extension of time on 10 March 2021, about five months after the transmission deadline had passed. It did not argue that the case stated had been validly transmitted in October 2020.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the governing test was whether an extension would do justice between the parties, taking account of the delay, its explanation and any prejudice. He found the balance of justice against an extension. The respondents had been acquitted nearly two years earlier, and the alleged offences dated from almost four years before the judgment. Allowing an appeal to proceed risked a retrial in 2021 or 2022 over alleged offences from September 2017, the judge said.
The judge also considered the length of the delay relative to the 14-day limit, the NTA’s failure to seek directions promptly, and its conduct in allowing the District Court case stated to take considerable time to finalise. He said the NTA could have sought an order directing preparation of the case stated after the six-month preparation period expired but did not do so.
The application to enlarge time was refused, and the case stated appeal was dismissed as inadmissible. On costs, the judge noted that the respondents had been entirely successful and that the default position would entitle them to recover their costs from the NTA. He directed that any submissions seeking a different costs order be filed by 4 October 2021; the judgment did not make a final costs order.