The High Court refused leave in two judicial review cases brought by Joseph Lavery, who challenged a Cavan District Court trial date and a separate order remanding him on bail. The court continued existing stays on his prosecution until 20 June 2016, when they would lapse unless continued by the Court of Appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 15 June 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said Mr Lavery had not shown an arguable case that his rights were breached or that he suffered harm when the District Court fixed a trial date on 25 February 2016.
The challenge arose from an earlier judicial review about the appointment of a solicitor under legal aid. Mr Lavery had sought to represent himself. After he discharged the solicitor, the High Court refused leave in that first case on 21 December 2015, finding the issue essentially moot. Mr Lavery appealed that refusal.
He later argued that the February trial date breached a stay granted in the first case, which he said remained in force until his appeal was decided. Justice Humphreys said the original stay was intended to last only until he decided the first leave application. He said he saw no basis at that stage to restrain the trial, but continued the stays until 20 June so Mr Lavery could ask the Court of Appeal to address whether a stay should remain in place. The appeal was listed for hearing that day.
The court also refused leave in a third judicial review concerning a different criminal matter. Mr Lavery sought to challenge a District Court order made on 19 May 2016 remanding him on bail, claiming he had not received a summons. The Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that he had attended court and signed a recognisance that day. The judge said Mr Lavery had not shown an arguable basis for finding the remand order invalid, even if he had not been served with the summons.
The orders discharged, from 20 June, any stay remaining in the first case and the stay in the second case, unless the Court of Appeal continued them. Leave was refused in both the second and third judicial reviews. The judgment did not determine the underlying criminal proceedings.