Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions

1. This is an appeal brought by the Applicant Frank McBrearty against the Order of the High Court, (O’Neill J.) refusing to grant an application made before him for liberty to seek relief by way of judicial review for an order of prohibition restraining Judge John O’Donnell from continuing to hear the charges against the Applicant on miscellaneous summonses pending before Letterkenny District Court and certain other related summonses and also seeking an injunction restraining the second named Respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions from continuing the aforesaid prosecutions

2. Counsel on behalf of the Applicant has informed the Court that the summonses issued and to which exception is taken amount to approx. 160 offences which he regards as minor and trivial offences under the Licensing, Code and Road Traffic Acts; that the conduct of the prosecution before the learned District Court Judge has taken something in the region of 30 - 33 days already; that all of the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution has now been completed and that the proceedings are due to resume tomorrow in Letterkenny District Court at which proceedings the defence of the Applicant will be presented.

3. The Applicant has filed a very detailed affidavit raising a number of issues and allegations, which to say the least of it, are unusual and Counsel on behalf of the Applicant has referred to the same.

4. Counsel on behalf of the Applicant accepts that the jurisprudence of the Court as set out in the ex-tempore judgment of Mr. Justice O’Neill and is repeated on many occasions in this court namely, that when another court is

5. An application for an adjournment was made in this case in September and refused by the learned District Judge who as I say is due to resume the hearing of the matter tomorrow. As I have said the learned High Court Mr. Justice O’Neill was correct in his view of the jurisprudence applicable to applications of this nature and this Court will not interfere with his order in this regard. But the court is really concerned with the nature of the allegations made in this case and also by the submissions made by Mr. Giblin that the order for Discovery made herein has not been complied with and the attitude of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation thereto in holding or considering that there are no documents relevant to the matters in issue before the District Court. The Court has also been informed that the enquiry being conducted by Assistant Commissioner Carty is still ongoing and also the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions that the abuse of process alleged in the allegations made in the affidavit of the Applicant cannot and does not constitute a defence to the proceedings before the learned District Judge.

6. The learned District Judge acted within jurisdiction in refusing the application for an adjournment and the Court will not interfere with his ruling in this regard and will dismiss the appeal herein.

7. However, the Court is concerned by the unusual nature of the allegations and the extent of them contained in the affidavit of Mr. McBrearty and the fact that many of these allegations are subject to the ongoing enquiry being conducted by Assistant Commissioner Carty. It is fundamental to the whole concept of the administration of justice that justice has not only to be done but to be seen to be done and the court is satisfied that the learned trial judge is fully conscious of the obligation on him in this regard and that in order to fulfil and discharge his responsibilities in this regard before proceeding with the case he should be satisfied that all the relevant facts, including the documents, should be before him in order to enable him to determine the issues involved in these prosecutions and in the defence raised on behalf of the Accused so that not only justice should be administered but that any risk of injustice should be removed. I am satisfied that the learned trial judge will bear these remarks in mind.