The High Court has refused the Director of Public Prosecutions an extension of time to challenge a Circuit Court order reversing a two-month custodial sentence imposed on Samantha Tyndall. The judicial review proceedings will be dismissed as a result.
In a judgment delivered on 30 April 2021, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the Director’s application was made about two months after the three-month limit had expired. The court’s decision concerned only whether that deadline should be extended; it did not decide the underlying challenge to the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction.
The District Court convicted Tyndall on 4 July 2019 of an offence under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, involving toys valued at less than €100, and imposed a two-month custodial sentence. On 19 November 2019, the Circuit Court reversed the sentence on appeal.
The Director alleged that the appeal had been against sentence severity only, not conviction, and that the Circuit Court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing it in full. The Director began judicial review proceedings on 20 April 2020. The High Court had granted leave, but had not extended the time limit.
The Director cited delays in obtaining the Circuit Court hearing’s digital audio recording and a copy of its order. Both were received on 14 February 2020, before the three-month deadline expired. Justice Simons said there was no affidavit explanation for the further delay before the April application. He also found no need to obtain the recording first: the State Solicitor had attended the hearing, and the complaint raised a legal issue rather than a factual dispute. The transcript was not exhibited in the judicial review proceedings.
The Director also relied on public health restrictions introduced during the coronavirus pandemic and the public interest in prosecuting crime. The judge said the restrictions began after the application was already out of time, and the affidavit did not identify them as a cause of delay. He weighed the prosecution interest against expedition, finality and legal certainty, noting that Tyndall could assume the Circuit Court order was final after the deadline passed and that it affected her liberty.
The judge said the underlying legal issues were not necessarily straightforward and did not determine them. He concluded that the Director had not provided a good and sufficient reason objectively justifying the delay, and refused the extension under Order 84, rule 21. The judgment left costs unresolved: counsel for Tyndall intended to seek a recommendation under the Legal Aid – Custody Issues Scheme, and the parties were given liberty to apply.