The High Court dismissed Jonathan Gormley’s application for judicial review of a District Court order sending him forward for trial on indictment. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice O’Neill on 29 July 2008, held that the District Judge had acted within jurisdiction and had no other option in the circumstances.
Gormley had sought to quash the order made on 5 April 2005 and to prevent the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from prosecuting him on the charges in the Dublin Circuit Court. The application challenged the procedure by which the case moved from a proposed summary trial to trial on indictment.
He had been charged in the District Court on 8 December 2004 with offences under section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991 and section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. On 14 December, a garda acting for the DPP told the District Judge that the DPP consented to summary disposal. The judge considered the offences minor and accepted jurisdiction to hear the case. Gormley pleaded not guilty.
In February 2005, a DPP solicitor told the court that the DPP was “directing” a trial on indictment. Gormley’s solicitor objected that the DPP could not direct the District Judge to relinquish jurisdiction. After hearing submissions on 2 March, the judge decided the case should be sent forward. Gormley was sent forward on 5 April; his case was later listed for mention in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and adjourned after judicial review proceedings were begun.
The High Court found that the earlier indication of consent to summary trial had been an honest mistake: the DPP had not yet received the garda file or considered the mode of trial. The DPP had issued a direction on 17 February for the case to proceed on indictment and consented to the return for trial.
Justice O’Neill said the necessary DPP consent to summary trial had been absent from the outset. The mistaken indication, or the later description of the DPP’s decision as a direction, could not give the District Court jurisdiction to try the case summarily. The judge said there was no question of the DPP directing the District Judge; because summary trial was unavailable and the DPP had consented to trial on indictment, the District Judge had no other option but to send Gormley forward.
The court dismissed the judicial review application. It did not grant the requested order quashing the return-for-trial order or the injunction restraining prosecution.