The High Court dismissed Kevin Treacy’s judicial review challenge to rulings made during preliminary proceedings on two road traffic charges, finding no unfairness by the District Court judge.
In a judgment delivered on 23 July 2009, Mr Justice O’Neill said the District Court proceedings on 14 August 2006 concerned preliminary issues, not the hearing of the substantive charges. The charges alleged careless driving on 27 October 2005.
Treacy had challenged the service of the summonses and sought to question Garda Deirdre Ryan, who gave evidence that she served them on him outside Court 53 on 31 May 2006. The judge said Treacy did not dispute that Ryan served the summonses or challenge her account of the time, place or manner of service. He found the District Court judge’s interventions to keep the questioning relevant were proper and did not unfairly restrict Treacy.
The District Court judge also refused Treacy’s request to state a case to the High Court. Mr Justice O’Neill said a case stated was unnecessary because the relevant law was settled, and the refusal was within jurisdiction. He concluded that the decision to set a hearing date for the charges could not be displaced.
At the outset of the judicial review hearing in November 2008, Treacy introduced a late affidavit alleging that eight gardaí had seized his McKenzie friend, Eoin Rice, in the courtroom and that the District Court judge had nodded to them. The judge allowed the affidavit because of the seriousness of the allegations, then adjourned the case so evidence could be tested. Treacy later stated he was not alleging that the judge’s nod caused the arrest.
After considering affidavits, hearing cross-examination and reviewing the District Court transcripts, Mr Justice O’Neill accepted Garda Padraic O’Mara’s account that Rice was arrested in a corridor under a warrant issued by a Galway District Court judge in 2004, relating to a public order offence. He also accepted solicitor Vincent Dean’s evidence supporting that account. The judge rejected Treacy’s and Karen Treacy’s evidence about how and where the arrest took place, and called Treacy’s allegations a deliberate fabrication.
The judge found Treacy was not disadvantaged in the afternoon proceedings by Rice’s absence and said no relevant evidential papers were taken. He dismissed the judicial review case in its entirety. Earlier, he had refused to let Treacy add a request to dismiss the road traffic charges or prohibit further prosecution, ruling that this relief should have been included in the original application for leave. The judgment does not decide the underlying charges.