The High Court has refused an application to compel a District Court judge to continue hearing assault and false imprisonment charges, holding that the judge was obliged to send the case forward for trial before a jury once evidence raised the possibility that the offences were not minor.
Aidan Reade brought judicial review proceedings against Judge Reilly and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The charges arose from an alleged incident at Black Rose Studios in Menlough, Galway, on 25 July 2004. Reade was accused of falsely imprisoning Karen Gleeson and assaulting her, causing harm. The allegations were not findings by the High Court, which said it could resolve none of the underlying facts.
The District Court initially accepted jurisdiction after a preliminary review of statements. The trial began on 1 December 2005, and Gleeson had given some evidence when the judge stopped it, saying the case did not fall within the court’s jurisdiction because it was not a minor offence. The matter was adjourned for service of a book of evidence, with a view to trial before a jury in Galway Circuit Court.
Reade argued that the DPP’s decision to direct summary trial bound the District Court, that the judge could not reverse his earlier decision to accept jurisdiction, and that any change required further evidence. He also said the change was unfair because he had expected the charges to be dealt with at the December hearing.
Mr Justice Charleton explained that where legislation permits either summary trial or trial on indictment, the DPP selects the mode of trial, but that decision remains subject to judicial scrutiny. A District Court judge must assess whether the alleged facts and potential penalty make an offence minor. If evidence at trial shows it may not be minor, the judge must stop the summary hearing so the accused’s constitutional right to a jury trial is protected. That power ends once there has been a conviction.
The High Court held that the judge’s earlier review of papers was only preliminary and was not equivalent to a guilty plea. After hearing evidence, the judge was entitled—and required—to change his view. The court dismissed the application to compel him to continue the summary trial. It did not decide whether Reade committed either offence.