The Supreme Court has allowed Gerard Molloy to challenge a Limerick District Court order sending him forward for trial and has stayed the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of that judicial review.
Molloy had been sent for trial in the Circuit Court in Limerick on an allegation that, at Clarke Avenue on March 27, 1998, he possessed a collection of items including tools, gloves, torches and a scanner with the intention that they be used in connection with larceny or burglary.
He had unsuccessfully applied to the High Court for permission to judicially review District Judge O’Donnell’s decision. His Supreme Court appeal concerned two principal complaints about the preliminary examination which preceded the order sending him forward for trial.
The court rejected his argument that the District Judge’s ruling on whether the charge was invalid for duplicity could itself ground judicial review, finding that the judge had been acting within jurisdiction on that legal question.
However, Molloy also alleged that during the preliminary examination he was prevented from having prosecution exhibits produced while cross-examining Garda O’Neill, and that this affected his ability to question the witness and potentially call a witness of his own. He further alleged that he was prevented from cross-examining the garda about an apparent discrepancy between two versions of a witness statement.
Murray J said an accused was entitled under the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 to procedural protections during a preliminary examination, including relevant cross-examination and the calling of evidence. Where exhibits were material to that process, an accused could be entitled to have them produced for consideration by the District Judge.
The Supreme Court did not decide that Molloy’s allegations were proved. It noted that the application had been made ex parte and the respondents had not yet been heard. It held only that Molloy had established an arguable case on those procedural grounds.
The matter was remitted to the High Court for judicial review, with the trial stayed in the meantime. The proceedings against the Governor of Limerick Prison were dismissed because no basis had been shown for including the governor as a defendant.