The Supreme Court has ruled that public order proceedings against Air Corps member Damien Mellett can return to the District Court for sentencing, despite finding that a remark made by the District judge about a possible Garda assault claim was inappropriate and irrelevant.
Mellett had been convicted on March 21, 2000 of intoxication in a public place and threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour. He disputed the allegations and maintained that he had been assaulted by a Garda, about which a complaint had previously been made.
After reserving judgment for about two weeks, District Justice Michael Reilly found Mellett guilty. During mitigation, Mellett’s solicitor sought a particularly lenient outcome, explaining the potential consequences a conviction could have for his Defence Forces career.
According to evidence accepted by both the High Court and Supreme Court, the judge then indicated that he would consider disposing of the criminal matter without recording a conviction if Mellett withdrew his Garda complaint, undertook not to pursue further action and paid £150 into the court poor box.
Mellett initially indicated that he would accept that course but later changed his mind because he wished to retain the option of bringing proceedings over the alleged assault. He sought judicial review preventing the District Court from continuing.
The Director of Public Prosecutions conceded before the Supreme Court that whether Mellett intended to sue or complain about Gardaí was wholly irrelevant to the proper sentence and that the remark should never have been made.
However, Mr Justice Hardiman held that this did not justify stopping an unfinished criminal trial by judicial review. The Supreme Court stressed that criminal proceedings should generally run to completion before collateral court challenges are pursued and rejected the attempt to obtain prohibition on a preventive, or “qui timet”, basis.
The case was therefore remitted to the District Court to proceed according to law. The Supreme Court said it was to be presumed that the District judge would confine sentencing and any comments to matters relevant to the charges.