The High Court has refused an application for leave to seek judicial review by a man facing sentencing after pleading guilty to charges arising from an armed robbery at Ulster Bank in Stillorgan, County Dublin.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 12 October 2020 that the papers disclosed no arguable ground for judicial review. The application concerned the process leading to a Circuit Court sentencing hearing scheduled for 19 October 2020. It was a decision on whether to grant leave for judicial review, not a ruling on sentence or on any renewed request to change the pleas.
The applicant had initially pleaded not guilty and was tried with co-accused earlier in 2020. On 5 March, the prosecution indicated it would enter a nolle prosequi on two charges. The applicant then pleaded guilty to one existing charge and a newly preferred charge. The High Court reviewed the transcript and concluded he had been arraigned on the additional charge before the jury and was properly before the Circuit Court on both charges.
In an affidavit, the applicant said he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, that he did not remember entering it, and that he believed he had not been sent forward for trial on the imitation-firearm charge. He also raised concerns about his legal representation and said he had acted to avoid exposing jurors to Covid-19. The judgment records that the Circuit Court had refused his request to change his plea; those statements were the applicant’s complaints, not findings by the High Court.
Mr Justice Simons said any decision on whether to allow a plea change fell within the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. The applicant had new legal representation there and could discuss renewing his application. The judge said a refusal to allow a plea change, and any sentence imposed, could be appealed to the Court of Appeal; judicial review was not the appropriate route on these facts.
The applicant was also serving an eight-year term, with the final year suspended, for unrelated offences imposed in November 2018. The High Court noted that he would remain in custody regardless of the outcome of the judicial review proceedings. The application for leave was refused, and the court directed that the ruling be sent to the prosecution and the relevant Circuit Court office before the scheduled hearing.