THE SUPREME COURT
Appeal No. 475/2009
Denham C.J.
O’Donnell J.
Clarke J.
John Gerard Anthony Burke
Plaintiff/Appellant
and
Ireland and the Attorney General and Others
Defendants/Respondents
Judgment of the Court delivered on the 12th day of July, 2016 by Denham C.J.
1. This is an appeal by John Gerard Anthony Burke, the plaintiff/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, from the refusal by the High Court (Hedigan J.) on the 9th October, 2009, to grant a stay on proceedings in the District Court.
2. In a note of the judgment the learned High Court judge stated:-
3. The appellant has appealed this decision.
4. The only issue before the Court on this appeal is whether the learned High Court judge was correct in refusing a stay.
5. The appellant also brought a motion to adduce additional evidence. The appellant grounds this motion by way of an affidavit sworn by him on the 8th April, 2016. He deposes that the proceedings are as far on today as they were twelve years ago, that there has been no conviction for cruelty to any animals. He still seeks a stay or injunction. To explain matters further he enclosed some affidavits and exhibits.
6. On behalf of the defendants/respondents, referred to as “the State”, an affidavit was filed by Paul Fitzpatrick, State Solicitor for County Tipperary (S.R.). As the appellant objected to this affidavit, the Court did not consider it.
7. The Court has considered the documents filed on behalf of the appellant. In addition, the Court has considered the oral submissions made by the appellant and those made on behalf of the State.
8. In this case the appellant sought a stay on criminal prosecutions. A stay on a criminal prosecution is a matter which the Court treats very seriously. It is a fundamental requirement that there be an arguable case in such circumstances. It would be wrong to restrain a criminal prosecution on the basis of an assertion as to unconstitutionality of a statute or European Regulation. A bare assertion of unconstitutionality is insufficient to ground such an application. It is necessary to establish a significant argument as to a basis for such an order, which the appellant failed to do. In the circumstances of this case, it would have been improper to stay a criminal trial.
9. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that there was no error by the learned High Court Judge, and it would dismiss the appeal.
