The High Court has refused an applicant’s request for an order requiring a separate hearing on disclosure before his pending District Court trial, finding no general entitlement to such a hearing in a summary prosecution.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the District Court must decide in the first instance whether disclosure is required and what steps are needed to ensure a fair trial. He said the accused must have sufficient time to consider any material disclosed, and the District Court may adjourn the trial if necessary. The High Court did not decide whether the prosecution had fully met its disclosure obligations or whether the material sought was relevant.
The applicant faces three alleged public order offences arising from an incident said to have occurred in August 2019 at Liffey Valley Shopping Centre. The judgment says he denies the charges. He had sought video and audio recordings, including possible body-camera footage and recordings from Ronanstown Garda Station, as well as a separate hearing at least four weeks before trial.
The prosecution said disclosure obligations had been met. It told the applicant in March 2026 that the evidence relating to the District Court charges had been disclosed, and later said he had received the shopping-centre footage. The applicant maintained that additional recordings might exist.
A separate claim alleged that the District Court Office had cancelled a hearing listed for 11 June 2026. Reviewing the transcript of an earlier District Court hearing, Mr Justice Simons found that the case had been adjourned to 3 September, with no separate June listing fixed. He therefore refused relief against the Courts Service on that claim.
The judge also refused the requested order requiring a separate hearing and a related declaration that a preliminary hearing could not take place on the same day as the charges were heard. He said the Criminal Procedure Act 2021 provision for preliminary trial hearings applies to cases sent forward for trial on indictment, not this summary prosecution. That did not prevent the District Court from listing a separate hearing where appropriate.
The applicant remains free to seek further disclosure when the prosecution returns to the District Court. The High Court left any application about disclosure, an adjournment or trial preparation for that court to decide. The judgment did not determine one other requested form of relief after the applicant said he wanted the preliminary-hearing issue decided instead.
The underlying prosecution remains pending. The reporting restriction protecting the applicant’s identity remains in force unless varied by further order. The High Court gave a provisional view that the respondents could recover costs, subject to further submissions, and listed the case for 27 October 2026 to hear submissions on the proposed order. The stay on the criminal proceedings was extended to that date.