The High Court has refused to stop a Galway prosecution over three alleged public order offences, ruling that an earlier District Court hearing ended without a decision on guilt or innocence.
In a judgment delivered on 26 May 2009, Mr Justice Hedigan rejected Dean O’Brien’s applications to prohibit a fresh hearing and to treat the earlier proceedings as an acquittal. The court held that neither double jeopardy nor criminal estoppel prevented the case from proceeding.
O’Brien was arrested after a public order incident at Eyre Square on 18 November 2006. He was charged with intoxication to a degree that created a reasonable apprehension of danger, using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, and wilfully obstructing a Garda. The charges were under sections 4, 6 and 19(3) of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994.
O’Brien alleged that a Garda struck him with a baton while he was in a patrol car. He complained to the Garda Síochána Complaints Board and later to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. The Commission notified his solicitor in May 2008 that the complaint was inadmissible because it had not been made within six months of the incident.
At Galway District Court in January 2008, O’Brien pleaded guilty to the section 4 and section 6 charges. After the prosecution presented evidence on the obstruction charge, the judge rejected a no-case submission and heard defence evidence. When shown a medical report concerning injuries sustained during the arrest, the judge stopped the hearing pending the Commission’s investigation, disqualified himself from hearing the case further and adjourned it.
A different District Court judge later said the matter would proceed as a hearing de novo, or anew. O’Brien sought judicial review, arguing that a fresh hearing would expose him to double jeopardy and give the prosecution an unfair advantage after hearing his defence. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application.
Mr Justice Hedigan found that the District Court had made no finding on the obstruction charge and that the proceedings had not concluded in a conviction or acquittal. He also held that criminal issue estoppel had no role in Irish criminal proceedings, following Supreme Court authority. The fact that both sides had learned more about each other’s cases did not, by itself, establish special prejudice or an unfair trial.
The High Court refused the relief sought. Its judgment did not determine the merits of the outstanding obstruction charge; it allowed the proposed District Court hearing to proceed.