The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Dona Sfar against the refusal of judicial review relief concerning 13 convictions under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. The convictions were entered in the District Court on 7 July 2016, and appeals against them were pending in the Circuit Court when the High Court ruled in December 2018.
The appellant sought declarations that the convictions were nullities. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s refusal of relief, concluding that the judicial review application was brought outside the time allowed and that there was no good and sufficient reason to extend that time.
The court said the relevant period ran from the date the convictions were entered, not from the later refusal of an application to set them aside. The Circuit Court appeals did not postpone the start of the judicial review time limit: the stay arising from an appeal did not affect the validity of the original orders, the judgment said.
The appeal also concerned the District Court trial proceeding in the appellant’s absence. She said she had a medical appointment in Northern Ireland on the hearing date and understood that an adjournment had been agreed. The judgment recounts that her communications about the appointment were with the District Court Clerk, and that the transcript showed no adjournment application was made to the judge. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s assessment that the trial judge could proceed in the circumstances, including because it must have been clear the matter was going ahead and the appellant had not applied to the judge.
The appellant also argued that the District Court judge should have recused himself because he had previously convicted her in other proceedings. The Court of Appeal held that prior convictions, including for the same or similar offences, were insufficient on the facts to establish objective bias or justify relief.
A further complaint concerned notice of prosecution witnesses. The judgment said the appellant had not relied on the timing of that notice as a ground for seeking an adjournment, and upheld the High Court’s rejection of the complaint.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal. It did not determine the pending Circuit Court appeals against the convictions.