The High Court has quashed a District Court decision refusing jurisdiction over a charge that Stephen Ryan assaulted a third party, causing harm. The matter was remitted to the District Court for further consideration.
In a judgment delivered on 12 February 2020, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan found that the proceedings on 10 May 2017 were objectively unfair. She said the Inspector’s limited account did not tell the District Judge that jurisdiction had previously been accepted, that the case was listed to secure a new trial date, or that Ryan had been excused from attending. The court relied on the Inspector’s account when deciding the charge was too serious for summary disposal.
The charge concerns an alleged assault on 6 March 2016, contrary to section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. At an earlier hearing on 12 October 2016, the District Judge heard brief evidence that Ryan had allegedly head-butted a third party and fractured his nose. The Inspector also said the Director of Public Prosecutions was directing summary disposal, and the judge accepted jurisdiction.
The trial was listed for 28 March 2017 but was not reached. That day, the case was adjourned for mention on 10 May to arrange a new trial date, and Ryan’s attendance was excused. His solicitors had agreed a proposed date with the prosecution, subject to the court’s approval. On 10 May, however, the Inspector gave a brief account of the alleged incident and provided the same GP medical report. The judge said the matter was too serious and declined jurisdiction. The case was adjourned to 19 July.
The applicant argued that the decision lacked adequate reasons and breached fair procedures. The DPP disputed those claims, saying the judge gave a reason and Ryan was represented, with an opportunity to make submissions. The High Court rejected the challenge to the judge’s stated reason and found no basis to conclude that the decision was irrational. It also noted that Ryan’s representative contributed to the difficulty by not making submissions or providing an accurate account of the listing, but said that did not justify denying relief.
The court allowed an amendment to the statement of grounds and ordered the 10 May decision quashed. It did not determine the assault charge or direct a particular outcome on remittal; the matter was returned to the District Court for further consideration.