The High Court refused Frank Ward leave to seek judicial review aimed at stopping a prosecution for an alleged assault, finding the respondents’ legal arguments sound. The decision did not determine whether the alleged assault occurred; it concerned whether Ward could proceed with his challenge to the summons.
The prosecution concerns a single assault charge under section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. The summons alleges that Ward assaulted prison officer Louise Prendergast at Dublin Road, Portlaoise, on 20 April 2016. A Garda applied for the summons on 19 October 2016.
Ward, who represented himself at the leave hearing, raised four objections. He argued that the summons was issued outside the six-month time limit, was not signed by the District Court clerk, did not give sufficient particulars of the alleged offence, and cited the wrong statutory authority for its issue.
For the respondents, counsel argued that the summons was within time: applying the Interpretation Act 2005, the six-month period ran from 20 April to 19 October 2016, making the date of issue the final day. Counsel also submitted that later District Court rules had replaced the 1948 rules Ward relied on, that the summons complied with the applicable form, and that its date, place, statutory provision and complainant gave adequate information about the charge. On the statutory-authority point, counsel argued that the summons still correctly referred to section 1(3) of the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986, as amended.
Mr Justice Eagar said the respondents’ arguments were sound in law and refused leave to apply for judicial review seeking an order prohibiting the prosecution in Case No. 202164/2016. The ruling was at the leave stage; it was not a trial or a finding on the assault allegation.