The High Court has refused an application by Arthur Connell Nugent to stop a pending District Court prosecution over alleged unlicensed property services, ruling that his judicial review application was brought out of time.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the judgment electronically on 17 September 2020. He found that Mr Nugent had provided no evidence explaining why he did not apply for judicial review within the required period, and had not filed the affidavit required to support an extension of time.
The prosecution concerns allegations that Mr Nugent auctioned livestock on 8 March 2018 and held himself out as available to provide property services the following day, without a licence. These are allegations in the District Court summons; the High Court did not determine whether they were proved.
Mr Nugent’s judicial review challenge raised three main issues. He argued that the Property Services Regulatory Authority could not prosecute him based on an investigation conducted into a company; that a caution given during the investigation did not adequately warn that his answers could lead to his prosecution; and that destruction of an inspector’s handwritten notes made a fair trial impossible. He also sought an extension of time to bring the challenge.
The summons issued on 14 December 2018 and was served on Mr Nugent on 20 December. The court said time for the jurisdiction and caution arguments began, at the earliest, when the summons was served. Even on the applicant’s most favourable calculation, the deadline expired before he sought leave for judicial review on 15 July 2019. For the notes issue, the court considered that time might have begun when he was told on 26 February 2019 that the handwritten notes had been destroyed; that deadline had also passed before the application.
The judge said the applicant had not explained the delay, despite the respondent raising the issue in its opposition. The court therefore could not find good and sufficient reason to extend the time limit and refused the reliefs sought.
The judgment gave a further reason for refusing the application: even if it had been brought in time, the issues about prosecution jurisdiction, the caution and the missing notes were more properly for the judge hearing the criminal trial. The High Court expressly declined to express an opinion on those substantive issues. The pending prosecution was not decided by this judgment.