The High Court has refused Sidney Sutton leave to bring a second judicial review seeking to prohibit his retrial for assault causing harm to his then partner. The Court of Appeal had ordered a retrial, and the Supreme Court refused his attempt to overturn that decision. The High Court had previously refused leave to challenge the retrial, and the Court of Appeal upheld that refusal.
Mr Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the current application relied on a 999 call, the absence of forensic reports and an argument about corroboration. None amounted to new evidence or a new issue that could justify reopening the earlier case.
Sutton said a recording of the 999 call had only become available to him in February 2025. The judge noted that he had confirmed it was included in disclosure sent to him in 2020 and had been in his possession since then. The call, as described in the judgment, contained no description of a crime or allegation. The judge found it did not make the trial fundamentally unfair or provide grounds to prohibit it.
Sutton argued that the call supported a claim that gardaí entered his home unlawfully because no offence was described. The judge said she could see no legal basis for that argument on the facts presented, but stressed that she was not the trial judge. The legality of the entry was for the Circuit Court to decide.
The judge also rejected the claims concerning forensic reports and uncorroborated statements as matters raised, or capable of being raised, in Sutton’s earlier proceedings. She recalled finding previously that there had been no deliberate suppression of a forensic report. The judgment says no such report had been prepared, and that the absence of forensic evidence did not establish grounds for a new judicial review.
On corroboration, the judge said the complainant’s account was supported by a witness who claimed to have seen the assault. She also said the law does not require forensic evidence and permits convictions based on uncorroborated testimony.
The judgment records that a Circuit Court judge had refused on 19 June 2025 to dismiss the prosecution under section 4E of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, as amended. The High Court said any appeal concerning that decision was for the appropriate process, and that it was not the High Court’s role to review a criminal trial once it had commenced.
Gearty J refused the application and declined Sutton’s request to stay the Circuit Court trial. The ruling concerned leave for judicial review; it did not determine the disputed allegations or the outcome of the retrial.