The High Court has sent a harassment case back to Wexford District Court to reconsider the sentence and any ancillary orders, while directing that it proceed as a summary matter and that the accused remain bound by his guilty plea.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons made the order on 10 September 2019 in a supplemental ruling in Mark Mooney’s judicial review case against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The parties consented to the form of order. The court directed the District Court to reconsider sentence in line with findings in its principal judgment of 23 August 2019. It also recorded that the District Court judge was bound by his predecessor’s acceptance of jurisdiction. The DPP was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs, including reserved costs, written submissions and two counsel on the leave application, with costs to be taxed if not agreed.
The ruling concerned the limits of judicial review, which the judge said was supervisory and not an appeal on the merits. The underlying criminal proceedings involved an offence of harassment under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Injuries against the Person Act 1997. The judgment states that the accused had pleaded guilty after the DPP consented to summary disposal and the District Court judge accepted jurisdiction. The remaining issue in the District Court was the appropriate sentence.
An injured party, appearing in person, asked the High Court to address whether the case should have gone to the Circuit Court for trial on indictment. She told the court the offence had a devastating psychiatric and psychological effect on her and said the case should attract the more serious penalties available on indictment. The ruling records that the District Court maximum was 12 months’ imprisonment and the Circuit Court maximum on indictment was seven years.
Justice Simons refused that request. He said the correctness of the District Court’s acceptance of jurisdiction had not been raised in the judicial review grounds and was not before him. He added that reopening the issue after the accused had entered a guilty plea on the basis of summary proceedings would risk unfairness. The court expressed sympathy for the injured party but said the procedural steps could not now be unwound.