The Court of Appeal has dismissed Arthur Connell Nugent’s appeal over a pending prosecution alleging that he provided property services and held himself out as available to provide them without a licence. The court did not decide whether he committed either offence. It held that his judicial review challenge was brought out of time and that the issues he raised could be determined by the District Court judge at trial.
The Property Services Regulatory Authority appointed inspectors in February 2018 to investigate the activities of Edward Paul Nugent Limited and Castleblayney Livestock Sales. Inspectors visited the premises on 9 March 2018. Their report records that Nugent, who was a company director, said under caution that he was an auctioneer and that an estate agency and livestock mart were operating. It also says inspectors later observed him conducting a livestock auction. These are accounts in the report, not findings by the Court of Appeal about the alleged offences.
The Authority decided to prosecute Nugent personally and two summonses issued in December 2018. He argued that the investigation had been authorised against the company, not him, and that the Authority could not prosecute him without a valid investigation and report concerning him. He also challenged the terms of the caution and said the inspectors’ original handwritten notes had been destroyed, creating a risk of an unfair trial. The Authority disputed those claims and argued that the issues belonged before the trial judge.
The inspectors said one of them transcribed the handwritten notes into a typed record on 12 March 2018, after which the originals were shredded. The Court of Appeal described their destruction as unsatisfactory. It nevertheless found that Nugent had not identified a specific factual dispute the missing notes might resolve or shown a real risk of an unfair trial that the District Court could not remedy. The trial judge could rule on whether the answers under caution were admissible and could dismiss the case if appropriate. The inspectors’ reported observation of the mart was also separate evidence.
The court held that Nugent needed an extension of time to bring judicial review proceedings. He had not sworn an affidavit explaining the delay, as required by the court rules, and the correspondence did not provide a sufficient explanation. The court also left the statutory relationship between the investigation and prosecution powers for the trial judge to decide, making no ruling on the merits of that argument.
The appeal was dismissed. The court’s provisional view was that the Authority should receive its appeal costs. Nugent had 14 days to apply for a hearing on costs; absent such an application, an order in the proposed terms would be made.