The High Court dismissed Dona Sfar’s application for judicial review of her 2016 District Court convictions, finding that the application was brought outside the time limit and that she had not shown grounds to extend it.
Mr Justice Binchy delivered the judgment on 13 December 2018. The case came before him as an application for leave for judicial review, heard on a telescoped basis. Sfar sought to have the District Court orders set aside. The judge said the application was out of time and dismissed it on that ground, but also addressed her other arguments.
Sfar had been convicted on 7 July 2016 of 19 offences under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 relating to neglect of animals in her possession or control. The District Court imposed fines of €90 for each offence, €1,500 in costs, €500 in expenses and a five-year disqualification from keeping animals.
The High Court found that the three-month period for seeking judicial review ran from 7 July 2016 and expired on 7 October. Sfar’s notice of motion was not issued until 16 November. Her application to have the convictions set aside in the District Court, and her pending Circuit Court appeal, did not extend the judicial review deadline. The judge also found no evidence that her health had prevented her from applying in time.
Sfar argued that the District Court should not have proceeded in her absence because she had sought an adjournment on medical grounds and believed the judge had agreed to it. The High Court found that she knew the case remained listed for 7 July. The previous day, she had spoken with the court clerk rather than making an adjournment application to the judge; the judge had not adjourned the case. She was told to make an application on the hearing date, but did not attend. The judge concluded that the District Court had discretion to proceed and that Sfar had not established an error in its decision to do so.
The High Court also rejected her claim that the District Court judge should have recused himself because he had previously heard cases involving her. The court found that she had not provided evidence about the earlier convictions sufficient to establish objective bias. It further noted that an earlier direction about notice of prosecution witnesses had apparently been complied with only three days before trial, but Sfar had lost the opportunity to raise any resulting prejudice by not attending.
The application was dismissed. The judgment did not determine Sfar’s separate Circuit Court appeal, which the source said was pending.