The High Court has refused Joseph Lavery permission to bring a judicial review application seeking to prohibit his trial, which was due to start in Cavan Circuit Court on 19 March 2019.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 15 March 2019. The application was made under an Isaac Wunder order imposed on Lavery in 2016, which required him to obtain the court’s permission before issuing further proceedings.
Lavery is facing prosecution on indictment over alleged offences said to have been committed on 29 April 2017. The allegations include assault causing harm, assaulting a peace officer, threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, two counts of obstructing traffic and unauthorised interference with a vehicle’s mechanism. The judgment records the allegations; it makes no finding on whether they occurred.
He had unsuccessfully applied to terminate the prosecution in Cavan District Court on 20 September 2018 and Cavan Circuit Court on 12 March 2019. The judgment also says he had applied to another High Court judge for permission on 14 March and was told to put the State on notice. Justice Humphreys said it was inappropriate to make the same application ex parte to a different judge after that direction.
The judge said Lavery had not shown arguable grounds for the proposed judicial review. The proposed grounds alleged that the Director of Public Prosecutions was in contempt over alleged non-compliance with an order in an unrelated case, to which Lavery was not a party. Even assuming that alleged non-compliance, the judge said, it did not provide arguable grounds to stop Lavery’s trial. The judgment also noted that Lavery had appeals pending before the Court of Appeal, but said their existence was not itself a ground to prohibit the trial.
Justice Humphreys said Lavery’s renewed reliance on the contempt allegation reinforced the need for the 2016 restriction, as the same idea had featured repeatedly in earlier proceedings. He also said the application’s timing—the last working day before trial—counted against allowing it to proceed, given the importance of an effective prosecution.
The court refused the specific permission sought: leave under the Isaac Wunder order to file an application for leave to seek judicial review. It did not determine the criminal charges or prohibit the trial.