The High Court extended time for the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) to bring a judicial review and quashed the parts of a Sligo District Court costs decision that required GSOC to pay costs to Maeve O’Brien and Fintan O’Brien.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice O’Regan on 20 December 2017, concerned costs awarded after criminal charges against the two respondents ended with a nolle prosequi—a formal decision not to proceed with the prosecution—on 29 July 2015. The charges alleged that they had provided false or misleading information to GSOC, contrary to section 110 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. The High Court made no findings on those allegations.
The charges followed a complaint the respondents made to GSOC about an off-duty garda after a road traffic incident on 23 June 2011. GSOC investigated and sent a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who directed that the respondents be charged. At the District Court hearing, counsel for the respondents sought costs after the prosecution was discontinued. The judge awarded costs and later, after the matter was re-entered, directed that they be paid by GSOC rather than the DPP. That costs decision was affirmed on 5 November 2015 after GSOC made representations.
GSOC sought judicial review of the costs decision and an extension of the deadline for bringing the case. The High Court accepted that the extension was justified, noting that GSOC received the District Court order on 22 November 2015 and that the DPP’s State solicitor had appeared for the DPP, not GSOC. The respondents opposed the extension, arguing that the delay lacked a sufficient explanation and left them uncertain about recovering their District Court costs.
The court also considered whether GSOC had been a party to the District Court prosecution and could therefore be ordered to pay costs. The respondents pointed to GSOC’s role in investigating the complaint, obtaining evidence and appearing in the case title. O’Regan J concluded that the DPP made the decisions to prosecute and discontinue the case, and that DPP personnel conducted the prosecution. GSOC had provided investigative material, but was not a party to the District Court proceedings.
The court relied on earlier High Court decisions concerning the District Court’s costs powers in criminal proceedings, noting that the respondents offered no contrary case law. It ordered an extension of time and quashed the District Court’s decisions of 22 October and 5 November 2015 insofar as they awarded costs against GSOC. The ruling addressed who could be ordered to pay those costs; it did not determine whether the respondents were entitled to costs from another party.