The High Court has refused an application by entertainer and comedian Sylvester Fox to have his damages case against the Director of Public Prosecutions and State defendants tried before a jury.
Mr Justice Oisín Quinn ruled that the legal structure of the case was unsuitable for a jury, even assuming the court had discretion under its rules to direct one. The action will instead proceed before a judge sitting alone.
The proceedings arise from Mr Fox's unsuccessful prosecution for an alleged sexual assault at a Dublin bar in December 2018. He was charged in the District Court and unsuccessfully sought anonymity at a preliminary hearing in July 2019. He claims he was then subjected to intense media coverage.
The prosecution proceeded in February 2020. In March 2020, after the prosecution case had closed, the District Court dismissed the charge following an application on Mr Fox's behalf. He was acquitted.
Mr Fox subsequently sued the DPP, Garda Commissioner and State. His claims include damages for alleged breaches of constitutional rights, emotional distress and reputational harm. He also seeks a declaration that section 7 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 is unconstitutional because it treated the complainant and accused differently in relation to anonymity.
Mr Fox accepts he cannot maintain a malicious prosecution claim and instead alleges that the decision to prosecute was reckless, unreasonable or irrational. The defendants deny wrongdoing and have raised several preliminary legal objections.
The judge said a jury can traditionally assess reputational damages, but that consideration was outweighed here by the case's legal complexity. Key questions concerning constitutional damages, the existing law of defamation, the legal protection given to DPP decisions and the constitutionality of the anonymity provision would have to be determined by a judge.
Mr Justice Quinn also found that splitting factual and legal issues between judge and jury risked confusion, longer hearings and greater cost. He refused the application and said he would hear the parties on costs and any further orders.