The Supreme Court has dismissed Kevin Tracey’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing most of the judicial review relief he sought over District Court proceedings concerning 12 road-traffic summonses.
In a judgment dated 30 April 2020, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said there was no basis to set aside the High Court order. The appeal concerned a High Court ruling delivered in January 2009, which had refused to quash earlier District Court orders or stop the summonses proceeding before a different District Court judge.
The summonses alleged various road-traffic offences, including driving without insurance and leaving the scene of an accident. The judgment does not determine those allegations. It records that the summonses were brought by Kevin Grogan and Ronan Coffey, and that the High Court found they had been issued within the applicable six-month time limit.
Tracey challenged the handling of preliminary issues at a District Court hearing on 12 October 2006. His complaints included the refusal of an adjournment, difficulties raising preliminary issues, and disputes about the use of a stenographer and a McKenzie friend. He also alleged that he had been coerced into the witness box and denied a fair hearing.
The High Court found that the preliminary hearing lasted four hours and that the stenographer and McKenzie friend issues had been resolved or caused no prejudice. It concluded that the outstanding preliminary issues had been adjourned until 20 October, before the substantive trial, and rejected the claims of undue haste and unfairness as premature. The Supreme Court said the High Court was correct in its assessment.
The High Court had made a declaration, effectively on consent, confirming that Tracey could retain a professional stenographer at his own expense when the summonses resumed. That remained subject to the trial judge’s authority to ensure the proceedings were not interrupted or delayed. The Supreme Court upheld that order and dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for the other reliefs sought.
Mr Justice MacMenamin also noted that 13 years had elapsed since the alleged incidents and criticised the delay in allowing the appeal to remain before the Supreme Court without an application to expedite it, despite pending District Court proceedings. He said judicial review proceedings must not be allowed to become stale.