The High Court has directed that Steven Penrose’s application for leave to seek judicial review be heard on notice to the Director of Public Prosecutions, giving the respondent four weeks after receiving the papers to file any written reply or affidavit.
In directions delivered on 13 March 2023, Mr Justice David Holland said Penrose, acting without a lawyer, had filed two sets of papers on 3 March. The court treated them as one set because they concerned the same decision. The papers named a Circuit Court judge as respondent, contrary to the relevant court rule, so the proceedings were re-entitled against the DPP.
The judge summarised Penrose’s complaint but expressly made no finding about it. Penrose alleged that, when he appeared at Trim Circuit Court on 12 January 2022 in a criminal prosecution, he was allowed to change his plea from guilty to not guilty and that the decision “must stand”. He said the transcript instead recorded that the matter was put back to 14 January so he could make an application to change his plea. Penrose alleged that at Drogheda Circuit Court on 14 January he maintained that the change had already been accepted.
Justice Holland said the papers did not explain how the prosecution was disposed of on 14 January, what determinations or orders were made, whether the case ended with a guilty or not guilty plea, or whether Penrose was convicted and sentenced. They also did not establish whether his current detention followed from any conviction. The judge said the proceedings might involve factual disputes, particularly over what happened at the 12 January hearing.
The court directed the Chief Registrar to send the papers to the DPP through the Chief State Solicitor’s Office and to the County Registrar for County Louth. The DPP’s response is to be served on Penrose by registered post through the Governor of Mountjoy Prison. The leave application was adjourned to a remote hearing for mention only on 17 April 2023, with Penrose to attend remotely.
The directions concern how the leave application will proceed; they do not decide whether leave should be granted or resolve Penrose’s account of the earlier hearings. The judge also noted that no application had yet been made under the Legal Aid – Custody Issues Scheme and that it was unclear whether a custody issue arose.