The Supreme Court has dismissed John Gerard Anthony Burke’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to stay criminal proceedings against him in the District Court.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Denham on 12 July 2016, addressed only whether the High Court was correct to refuse the stay. The Supreme Court said a stay of a criminal prosecution required an arguable case and that a bare assertion that legislation was unconstitutional was not enough. It found Mr Burke had failed to establish a significant argument for such an order and said it would have been improper to stay the criminal trial.
The appeal arose from a High Court ruling by Hedigan J on 9 October 2009. The High Court judge’s note said Mr Burke appeared to be challenging the legality of the Acts under which he was being prosecuted, citing complaints about the Lisbon II referendum and the primacy of European law or regulations. The judge refused to stay the District Court proceedings and also declined to hear the action that day, noting the State had received very short notice. The only order made was that the costs of the application be reserved as costs in the action.
The High Court note also recorded a separate request for protection from an order by Hamilton D.J. directing psychiatric care in prison rather than psychiatric assessment. The judge made no order on that request. That issue was not before the Supreme Court on this appeal.
Mr Burke sought to introduce additional evidence by motion, supported by an affidavit sworn on 8 April 2016. He said the proceedings were no further advanced than they had been twelve years earlier and that there had been no conviction for cruelty to animals. He continued to seek a stay or injunction. The Supreme Court said it considered the documents he filed, along with oral submissions from him and the State. It did not consider an affidavit filed for the State after Mr Burke objected to it.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court judge had made no error and dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not determine the underlying prosecution or record its final outcome.