The High Court refused Kevin Tracey’s application for judicial review of preliminary proceedings concerning 12 Road Traffic Act summonses, finding the complaints unfounded and declining to intervene in the District Court case while it was ongoing. It made one declaration: Tracey could retain a professional stenographer at his own expense for the resumed proceedings, provided this caused no interruption or delay.
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 20 January 2009. Tracey, who represented himself, had appeared before District Judges Miriam Malone and Bridget Reilly at Richmond Courts in September and October 2006. The formal orders made at those hearings were to set dates for preliminary issues and the summonses. The District Court proceedings were later stayed pending the High Court case.
Tracey sought orders quashing alleged rulings, staying the prosecution, and directing the District Court to provide service documents, hear sworn evidence before deciding jurisdiction, and hold a separate hearing on preliminary issues. He also sought an order restricting the Director of Public Prosecutions’ role in prosecutions and a recommendation concerning legal costs. During the High Court hearing, he additionally sought to quash the summonses; the court refused because he had not been granted leave to seek that relief.
The High Court said judicial review should be used sparingly to intervene in a criminal proceeding underway in a lower court, particularly where the trial judge could decide the issues and they could be addressed on appeal. It rejected the application in its entirety on that discretionary basis, and also examined the complaints individually, finding them unfounded.
On the summonses, the court found they had been applied for and issued under the administrative procedure in the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986. It said the summonses were, on their face, applied for within six months of the alleged offences and were properly before the District Court. It also held that Tracey’s appearance cured any procedural defect in their issue or service.
The court found no refusal to allow a stenographer: both District Judges had confirmed Tracey could use one. It also found no adverse ruling barring his McKenzie friend; the judgment records that permission was granted in the afternoon of 12 October. The court said the second judge had heard submissions for four hours and adjourned outstanding preliminary issues to the date already fixed for the summonses, intending to address them before trial. It found no undue haste or unfairness.
The court refused the remaining requested orders, including mandamus and relief directed at the DPP, and said Tracey had no legal entitlement to the requested costs-scheme recommendation. The declaration about a stenographer did not establish that either District Judge had unlawfully refused or obstructed its use. The judgment does not state the eventual outcome of the traffic summonses.