The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ireland and the Attorney General, setting aside a High Court order that had ruled part of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 unconstitutional and a related District Court rule ultra vires.
In a separate judgment delivered on 25 July 2003, Mr Justice Hardiman agreed with the Chief Justice that section 4 of the 1857 Act was consistent with the Constitution and had been carried forward by Article 50. He also concluded that a District Judge asked to state a case must first consider whether the underlying decision raises a question of law.
The case arose after Brian Fitzgerald was acquitted in the District Court on 12 February 1998 of driving with excess alcohol in his urine. Prosecutors later served a notice seeking a case stated for the High Court, along with an unsigned draft prepared for the District Judge. The draft referred to evidence that Fitzgerald had consumed a large alcoholic drink after driving and before a urine specimen was taken. The judge had not signed it, and no case had yet been stated.
Hardiman said the statutory procedure was limited to alleged errors of law. Disagreement with a judge’s assessment of evidence or a witness’s credibility was not enough. He considered whether a legal question arose to be a condition for a valid application, distinct from whether an application raising such a question might be refused as “merely frivolous”.
The judgment did not decide whether Fitzgerald’s acquittal involved a question of law, or whether the prosecution’s draft raised one. Hardiman said it was for the District Judge to identify the grounds of the decision and determine whether a case should be stated. He regarded the remaining questions raised during the appeal as premature in the absence of a case actually stated or a refusal to state one.
The court’s constitutional conclusion addressed the provisions’ status, while the appeal’s other unresolved issues remained open. Hardiman would determine only the first question posed by the court and the constitutional issue; he agreed that the appeal should be allowed and the High Court order set aside.