The High Court dismissed a judicial review application challenging the transfer of a drink-driving prosecution from one District Court area to another. Mr Justice Charleton held that the transfer was authorised by law and said he would have refused the application even if the legislation had not covered the situation precisely.
The applicant had been arrested at Ballynoe, Co Cork, on 3 March 2008, on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. The judgment says testing found an alcohol concentration in his urine above 107 milligrams per 100 millilitres. He was summonsed under the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended.
The case was initially listed at Tullow District Court in Co Waterford. After a District Court areas order came into force on 4 November 2008, Ballynoe was placed in District Court Area 20 rather than Area 21. The applicant’s solicitor was told the hearing would take place in Fermoy, Co Cork. The applicant was convicted there before District Judge Michael Patwell.
The applicant did not complain about the manner of the trial. He argued that a judge assigned to Area 20 could not hear a case arising in Area 21. District Judge Patwell rejected that argument, leading to the High Court application.
The High Court considered legislation allowing District Court areas to be changed and providing for ongoing cases to be continued under the new arrangements. Mr Justice Charleton concluded that the 2008 order lawfully moved the jurisdiction to try the case from Area 21 to Area 20. He described changes to court areas and the movement of cases as administrative matters, distinct from retroactive penal sanctions.
The judge also addressed the court’s discretion to grant certiorari, an order quashing a decision. He said the applicant had received a fair trial before a court with jurisdiction and that the hearing took place only a few miles from where it would originally have been heard. He stated that, even if the applicant’s legal arguments were correct, the application would still have been refused in the circumstances.
The judgment dismissed the application for judicial review. It did not quash the District Court conviction.