The Court of Appeal has ordered Mr G. to pay the Director of Public Prosecutions’ costs of a successful appeal and the related High Court proceedings. The costs are to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree. Execution is stayed for 21 days from perfection of the order, and will remain stayed until the Supreme Court determines any application for leave to appeal filed within that period.
The ruling, delivered on 18 July 2025, dealt only with costs. In an earlier judgment on 6 June, the Court of Appeal allowed the DPP’s appeal against a High Court decision quashing a District Court judge’s refusal to issue summonses sought by Mr G. for a proposed private prosecution of certain members of An Garda Síochána. The Court of Appeal had concluded that the High Court could not rely on inadequate reasons as a ground for quashing the District Court decision because that ground had not been pleaded. It also found there was ample material for the District Court judge to consider the proposed prosecutions an abuse of process.
After the appeal judgment, the court indicated that the DPP, as the successful party, should receive costs for both the appeal and High Court proceedings. Mr G. made written submissions seeking a different order. The DPP’s reply was filed outside the 14-day period set by the court, but the court extended the deadline, finding that the one-working-day delay could not have prejudiced Mr G. It criticised the DPP’s failure to seek an extension in advance, while also noting Mr G.’s repeated failures to meet High Court deadlines.
The court said the starting point under section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 was that an entirely successful party should receive costs, unless the case’s circumstances or the parties’ conduct justified another order. It rejected Mr G.’s arguments that the case was a public-interest test case or that the DPP lacked a proper role. The court said there was no larger cohort of cases awaiting the outcome, Mr G. sought a personal advantage, and the case did not raise a point of general public importance or systemic significance.
Mr G. also sought damages in his costs submissions. The court said damages could not be claimed through submissions on costs. It granted a stay on execution of the costs order on the terms set out above, but did not otherwise depart from the usual costs starting point.