The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Conolly’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing him leave to seek judicial review over the setting aside of his Garda Boat Club convictions.
In a judgment delivered on 20 July 2017, Mr Justice Birmingham said the High Court had refused leave because Conolly’s application was brought more than three months after the order he complained of. The Court of Appeal agreed there were no good grounds to extend the time limit.
The convictions arose from an incident at the Garda Boat Club premises in Islandbridge, Dublin, on 11 December 2008. Conolly was convicted in the District Court in 2010 of three offences. A €500 fine was imposed for using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place; two other charges were taken into account. The Circuit Court affirmed the conviction on the public-order charge in 2011 and reduced the prison term that could be served if the fine went unpaid from 15 days to three.
After earlier judicial review proceedings and an appeal, the matter was listed again in the District Court on 19 February 2014, despite the appeal having concluded. The convictions were set aside. The Director of Public Prosecutions’ counsel told the High Court that an order made by the Supreme Court in separate proceedings about an intoxication offence had been mistakenly placed on the file for the Garda Boat Club charges. The Court of Appeal recounted the explanation that confusion led to Conolly’s appeal being reinstated and allowed by mistake.
Conolly’s later proceedings sought reasons for the removal of the convictions and, if available, a miscarriage-of-justice certificate and compensation. The Court of Appeal said the reasons had already been provided, including in the transcript of the 2014 District Court hearing. It also held that the High Court had no role in issuing a certificate under the Criminal Procedure Act 1993. The court said Conolly’s summary convictions did not fall within the Act’s relevant provisions, which concern people who stand convicted of specified offences.
The judges also rejected the argument that later constitutional rulings concerning the offence of offending modesty showed a newly discovered fact establishing a miscarriage of justice. The effective conviction and penalty related to the public-order offence; the modesty charge had been taken into account, and the public-order conviction was the one appealed to the Circuit Court.
The Court of Appeal said a constitutional challenge to the public-order law could not be considered at that stage because it had not been raised in the High Court or pleaded. It dismissed the appeal.