The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick McGreal’s challenge to a High Court order striking out his application to halt a District Court prosecution.
The appeal arose after Ms Justice Gearty struck out McGreal’s motion on 5 February 2026 when he was not present, either in person or remotely, when the matter was called. The motion formed part of wider High Court proceedings in which McGreal seeks damages for alleged malicious prosecution and other reliefs, including a constitutional declaration.
McGreal argued on appeal that Ms Justice Gearty had no power to deal with the motion because it had originally appeared before Mr Justice Cregan before later being moved between High Court lists.
Delivering an additional judgment on 7 July 2026, Mr Justice Alexander Owens rejected that argument. He said litigants are not entitled to choose which judge hears their case and that the administrative management and adjournment of motions between High Court lists does not require the type of judicial consent McGreal claimed was necessary.
The court held that Ms Justice Gearty had full jurisdiction to strike out the motion for non-appearance.
Mr Justice Owens also addressed the form of McGreal’s attempt to stop the District Court case. He said an application seeking, in substance, to prohibit criminal proceedings in an inferior court must be brought by judicial review and requires High Court leave. Such issues cannot simply be pursued as part of ordinary plenary proceedings for damages.
The judgment noted that McGreal could raise issues about the charge sheet, the authority to prosecute and the adequacy of the charge before the District Court itself, with judicial review available later if appropriate.
The appeal was dismissed. The judgment records that the criminal proceedings had been adjourned and were fixed for hearing in September 2026; it does not determine the merits of those charges.