The Court of Appeal has dismissed Reginald Carroll’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing him leave to seek judicial review of two separate matters: the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to prosecute two neighbours, and a District Court judge’s refusal to recuse herself from criminal proceedings against him.
The High Court refused leave on 22 October 2018. In a judgment delivered on 21 October 2019, the Court of Appeal reheard the application and dismissed the appeal. It did not determine the underlying criminal prosecution or the truth of the appellant’s allegations against his neighbours, Garda members or others.
Carroll sought to challenge the DPP’s decision, communicated in November 2016, not to prosecute his neighbours over complaints including alleged harassment, assaults, trespass and threats to kill. The DPP gave “insufficient evidence” as the reason. Carroll also sought orders requiring prosecutions to be brought. The Court of Appeal said the judicial review application was filed well outside the applicable time limits, with no explanation or basis for extending them. It also found that the material did not show bad faith, an improper motive or policy, or another exceptional circumstance that could justify court intervention in the DPP’s decision.
The court noted that Carroll described Garda investigations, a scene examination and photographs, but said the available material did not establish the probative value of any physical evidence or link it to an alleged perpetrator. It said the DPP’s decision could stand as a proper and valid decision on the information before the court. The judges did not have the prosecution file and did not assess the truth of the competing allegations.
The second challenge concerned the judge presiding over a summary prosecution in Clifden District Court for alleged dangerous driving and driving without insurance. Carroll argued that she should have recused herself, alleging bias and misconduct connected with earlier proceedings and a High Court stay. The Court of Appeal found his account and supporting material too vague to establish an arguable basis for judicial review. It said the evidence did not support his claim that court officials or the judge had acted to circumvent the stay. The transcript of a part-heard hearing in October 2018 showed, the court said, that he had been treated fairly and courteously.
Carroll had also sought orders including prohibition of the ongoing prosecution and, alternatively, a jury trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against refusal of leave; it did not grant those requested remedies.