The High Court has refused to remit a prosecution to the District Court, holding that the applicant could rely on the special plea of autrefois acquit after his conviction was quashed for a fundamentally flawed hearing.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Meenan on 1 November 2019, followed a judgment of 28 March 2019 granting the applicant certiorari. The court had invited submissions on whether the prosecution should then be heard again in the District Court.
The applicant had been tried on eight offences on 10 February 2016. During the hearing, his abusive and offensive behaviour led the District Judge to exclude him from the courtroom for a period. The prosecution proceeded in his absence, and he was convicted and sentenced to concurrent five-month terms of imprisonment, to date from 10 February 2016.
The applicant argued that the quashing of the convictions entitled him to plead autrefois acquit, so the matter should not return for another prosecution. Alternatively, he asked the High Court to use its discretion under Order 84, rule 26(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts not to remit the case. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought remittal.
Meenan said the District Court had competent jurisdiction, but the applicant had been deprived of a fair hearing. The certiorari order arose from the conduct of the hearing, rather than a defect affecting the District Court’s jurisdiction. Applying principles from earlier Supreme Court and High Court decisions, he concluded that the quashing of a conviction for this kind of impropriety in law amounts to an acquittal and permits the special plea.
The court therefore ruled that the applicant was entitled to rely on autrefois acquit and would not remit the matter to the District Court. Meenan added that, in light of that finding, the court could not exercise any discretion it might have under Order 84, rule 26(4). The judgment does not state that a plea was subsequently entered or determine any further proceedings on the charges.