The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application challenging the process that sent a Limerick charge against Patrick O’Reilly for trial in Clonmel Circuit Court.
Mr Justice Noonan delivered judgment on 19 December 2017. The application sought certiorari to quash the Cashel District Court order of 19 April 2017 sending O’Reilly forward for trial.
The charge arose from an allegation that O’Reilly threatened to kill Inspector Hunt during a search of his room at Pier One Hotel in Limerick on 3 February 2017. A separate alleged threat to kill Garda Donohue that day led to a Tipperary charge. The allegations were not findings in this judicial review.
The Director of Public Prosecutions had directed that both matters be dealt with together in Tipperary on indictment. But on 23 February, a District Judge transferred the Limerick charge to Limerick District Court on the judge’s own motion. The DPP later withdrew that charge there and O’Reilly was arrested and recharged in Cashel on 19 April. The Book of Evidence for both charges was served, and he was sent forward for trial to Clonmel Circuit Court.
O’Reilly argued that withdrawing and recharging the Limerick matter was a “colourable device” to move the case to Tipperary, amounting to forum shopping and unfairness. The DPP said the venue choice was hers and that her directions had been clear from the outset. She also argued the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to transfer the charge to Limerick.
The High Court agreed that the judge had no jurisdiction to make that transfer under section 79(4) of the Courts of Justice Act 1924. The judge’s power to transfer on his or her own motion applied only when the accused was before a court in a district other than the district where the offence was committed, where the accused resided or where the accused was arrested.
The court rejected the judicial review challenge. It noted O’Reilly had remained in custody on the Tipperary charge and that, even without the transfer to Limerick, he would have remained in custody and been sent for trial in Clonmel. The court said a claim of unfair procedure required demonstrable prejudice, which it found absent.
The judgment also ruled that arguments about delay in serving the Book of Evidence and the statutory basis for the arrest could not be considered because they were outside the grounds on which leave for judicial review had been granted. Counsel for O’Reilly had conceded those matters were not being relied on.
The court dismissed the application. It did not determine the truth of the alleged threats or the outcome of any criminal trial.