The High Court has dismissed the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection’s challenge to the District Court’s decision to strike out the remaining prosecutions arising from the 2015 liquidation of the company operating Clerys Department Store on O’Connell Street, Dublin.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2019, Mr Justice Meenan held that District Judge John Brennan had jurisdiction to strike out the charges and had applied the appropriate legal principles. The High Court refused the relief sought by the Minister, including an order quashing the District Court’s decision of 20 March 2018.
The remaining charges were summary offences under the Protection of Employment Acts 1997–2014. They concerned alleged failures to consult employee representatives about proposed collective redundancies, provide relevant information and keep records. On conviction, they carried a fine of up to €5,000. Separate, more serious charges under workplace relations and employment permits legislation had been withdrawn on 4 December 2017.
The District Court had ordered disclosure relating to earlier drafts of inspectors’ statements and access to relevant computers under expert supervision. Judge Brennan found that the order had not been complied with, saying no supervised access, or access at all, had been facilitated. He also considered the prosecution’s efforts to retrieve information, delays in issuing and progressing the summonses, and the accused parties’ access to the case against them. He concluded that another adjournment would fundamentally encroach on their rights and struck out the summonses.
The Minister argued in the judicial review that striking out the charges was disproportionate and that disclosure could have been dealt with at trial. The High Court noted that the District Court judge had heard the parties and was entitled to address disclosure at that stage. It also observed that the summonses appeared to have been issued to stop time running before the evidence needed for prosecution had been gathered, raising serious questions about possible abuse of process. That was a factor the District Court was entitled to consider.
Mr Justice Meenan said the District Court had carried out a detailed balancing exercise, taking account of both the accused parties’ rights and the public interest in prosecution. He dismissed the application, leaving the District Court’s strike-out in place. The High Court did not determine the underlying commercial transactions or the truth of the allegations in the charges.