The Court of Appeal has dismissed Linda Rogers’s challenge to a High Court decision refusing her permission to seek judicial review of two public order convictions arising from an incident at Store Street Garda Station in Dublin.
Rogers was convicted in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court on 1 February 2024 of failing to comply with a Garda direction and of threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour. She received a three-month sentence which was fully suspended subject to conditions, including good behaviour, engagement with the Probation Service and restrictions on attending Store Street Garda Station or contacting named Garda members.
Her judicial review application ran to 289 requested reliefs and 62 grounds. The central complaints concerned CCTV footage from the Garda station, alleged shortcomings in disclosure, the conduct of her trial, access to a disability officer and restrictions imposed by the District Court judge on questioning witnesses.
Mr Justice Allen said the key question was whether Rogers had identified any arguable ground showing that the District Court proceedings were so fundamentally flawed that judicial review, rather than an ordinary appeal, was appropriate.
On the CCTV issue, the court noted that a District Court judge had already accepted a Garda submission that only footage from the public office was relevant. Rogers could challenge that assessment in her statutory appeal to the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeal also rejected her reliance on cases involving lost or destroyed evidence because there was no comparable showing that relevant footage had been lost.
The court further held that the District Court judge had acted within jurisdiction when managing the trial, limiting irrelevant or excessive questioning and preventing Rogers from cross-examining Garda witnesses whom she herself had called.
Claims concerning disability access also failed because Rogers did not show that she required an access officer or that the absence of one affected the fairness of her arrest, trial or conviction.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed. The ruling does not decide Rogers’s underlying Circuit Court appeal against the convictions.