The High Court has allowed Stephen Manning to proceed with a judicial review challenge to his Circuit Court conviction, after extending the time for his application. The ruling grants leave to bring the case; it does not decide whether his claims are true or whether the conviction should be quashed.
Mr Justice MacGrath delivered the judgment on 3 April 2019. Manning had been convicted in the District Court in January 2017 of an offence under section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. The charge arose from an incident at Castlebar District Court in September 2015. His appeal was dismissed by the Circuit Court on 4 May 2017, and he was sentenced to two months in prison.
Manning sought judicial review, alleging, among other things, that he was denied effective legal representation and the opportunity to present a defence, and that the Circuit Court proceedings were unfair. He also sought orders quashing the conviction and compensation or damages. These are his claims, not findings made in this judgment.
The application was outside the usual three-month period for seeking leave. Manning said he had misunderstood the deadline after reading information on the Courts Service website and had believed the time limit was six months. The judge accepted that explanation as a sufficient reason to extend time, taking account of the respondent’s approach to the application and the absence of a claim of prejudice. The judge said the recording Manning described as new evidence about the 2015 District Court incident could not justify delay in challenging the later Circuit Court order.
A solicitor for the respondent disputed Manning’s account of the Circuit Court hearing. His affidavit said the appeal took place over three days, Manning cross-examined prosecution witnesses, and the judge offered legal aid if he brought a solicitor to court. Manning disputed that account and maintained that he had not been given a realistic opportunity for legal representation. The judge found a factual dispute about the extent of the opportunity for legal aid and representation.
Applying the low threshold for leave, the judge granted permission to seek judicial review on the relief and grounds specified in Manning’s statement of grounds. The judgment confines the case to the Circuit Court decision of 4 May 2017 and the pleaded grounds. It excludes his broader complaints about State agencies, other officials and the earlier District Court proceedings. The court also said an application concerning the filing of affidavits had been dealt with by extending time for their delivery.