The High Court has refused Tinka Zaprynova leave to seek judicial review of the Garda Commissioner over information about a 2017 road traffic accident and the prosecution that followed. It also refused her application to cross-examine two deponents for the respondent.
In a ruling delivered on 11 October 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the applicant’s stated claim was limited to obtaining answers and documents about the investigation and prosecution. The respondent had provided that information in a letter dated 24 November 2023 and supporting documents. Sworn evidence from a Garda superintendent said the material supplied represented all information and documentation then available in the respondent’s possession.
The information provided said the other driver was prosecuted for careless driving under section 52 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The case was heard in Dublin Metropolitan District Court sitting in Swords on 11 September 2018. The letter said the driver pleaded guilty, was fined €300 and received a three-month driving disqualification. On appeal, heard in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 31 January 2019, the fine was upheld and the disqualification was overturned. The ruling recorded that the summons number was corrected in a later affidavit to 62782423. It also said no copy of the oral précis of evidence remained available.
The applicant disputed the respondent’s account and alleged that information was withheld and documents were invalid or fraudulent. The judge said those assertions were unsupported by credible evidence and fell outside the claim as set out in her application. He also noted that complaints about being kept informed during the investigation and prosecution were not part of that claim.
The court found the information claim moot because the answers and available documents had been provided. It said leave could not be justified where the relief sought had, in reality, already been obtained. The judge said delay was also a concern but did not decide that issue, as it was unnecessary to his decision.
Because leave was refused, the cross-examination application fell away. The judge also refused it on its merits, finding no relevant conflict of fact requiring cross-examination. He said the ruling did not prevent the applicant from bringing different proceedings if advised and if there were a proper basis.
After a separate costs hearing, the applicant’s request for her costs was refused. The respondent was awarded costs from 31 January 2024. The judgment records that the applicant had said immediately after the ruling that she intended to appeal.