The High Court has refused the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) an extension of time to challenge Circuit Court orders that reversed custodial sentences imposed on Dean O’Brien. The judicial review proceedings will consequently be dismissed.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 30 April 2021. The DPP alleged that the Circuit Court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing appeals in full when they had been brought against sentence severity, not conviction. That allegation was not determined on its merits: the application before the High Court concerned whether the DPP should be allowed to bring the judicial review proceedings out of time.
The challenged Circuit Court orders were made on 19 November 2019. The DPP sought leave for judicial review on 2 March 2020, about 12 days after the three-month time limit. The High Court had granted leave earlier without extending time, and the DPP then applied for an extension.
The DPP cited difficulties contacting two Garda members, obtaining the digital audio recording of the Circuit Court hearing and receiving copies of the court orders. The judge found those reasons insufficient. The State Solicitor had attended the hearing, and the central challenge concerned a legal issue. The recording and court orders had been received by 14 February 2020, before the time limit expired, but the affidavit gave no explanation for the further delay before the 2 March application. The judge also found no adequate explanation for the timing of the requests or why preparation could not have proceeded in parallel.
The DPP submitted that the public interest in prosecuting crime and correcting what it characterised as fundamental errors favoured an extension. The court weighed that against the public interest in prompt criminal proceedings, finality and legal certainty. It noted that the Circuit Court orders affected the accused’s liberty and that, after the deadline passed, he was entitled to assume they were final and that he would not be imprisoned.
The judge also said the alleged jurisdictional error was not obviously a fundamental error warranting an extension despite the inadequate account of delay. He noted that the orders did not state that the appeals had been confined to sentence severity, and that the legal issues were not straightforward. The court did not decide whether the Circuit Court had exceeded its jurisdiction.
The High Court refused the extension under Order 84, rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. As a result, it said the judicial review proceedings would be dismissed. Costs remained unresolved: the judge asked counsel to confirm whether the proceedings came within the Legal Aid – Custody Issues Scheme and said the parties could apply to the court.