The High Court has dismissed Tanya Hamill’s application to prohibit a criminal prosecution on indictment, ruling that an earlier District Court strike-out did not amount to a decision on the merits or prevent fresh proceedings.
Hamill faces two counts of possessing a controlled drug and two counts of possessing a controlled drug for unlawful sale or supply. The alleged offences date from 13 August 2018, when a search warrant was executed at her dwelling. The judgment says a small quantity of drugs, said to be alprazolam and diamorphine, was allegedly seized. Hamill is presumed innocent, and her solicitor has indicated that the admissibility of a statement to gardaí will be challenged at any criminal trial.
The first prosecution began by summons in 2019 and was to be heard summarily in the District Court. In March 2021, after the prosecution sought an adjournment because the drugs said to be the central exhibit could not be located, the court struck out the proceedings. The High Court later obtained the District Court orders, which recorded that the complaints were struck out. A transcript showed the District Court judge had suggested any fresh prosecution should be brought within a month, but expressly said the suggestion was not binding.
The Director of Public Prosecutions later directed prosecution on indictment. Hamill argued that the renewed prosecution should have been timely and confined to the District Court, and that the change exposed her to a substantially higher maximum penalty. The High Court found there had been no representation that she would not be prosecuted and no substantive District Court ruling in her favour that barred a fresh case. It also held that the Director could choose indictment and was not required to give reasons in the circumstances. The charges themselves had not changed.
The court rejected the challenge to the Director’s decision and dismissed the judicial review in its entirety. It also rejected the Director’s argument that the application was out of time: under binding Supreme Court authority, the time limit did not begin on the date Hamill was sent forward for trial. The judgment’s provisional view was that the Director was entitled to costs; either side could seek a different order at a relisting on 20 June 2024.