Michael Waters v The Commissioner of an Garda Síochána
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Garrett Simons |
| Judgment Date | 25 August 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 552 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | 2020 No. 619 JR |
[2021] IEHC 552
2020 No. 619 JR
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review – Criminal conviction – Abuse of process – Applicant seeking to challenge the validity of a criminal conviction entered against him – Whether the judicial review proceedings represented an abuse of process
Facts: The applicant, Mr Waters, stood convicted of a single offence of assault causing harm contrary to s. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. The conviction was entered following a three-day trial before a judge and jury in the Circuit Court in June and July 2013. The conviction was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal in a written judgment delivered on 1 June 2017: People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v M.W. [2017] IECA 175. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 6 July 2018: Director of Public Prosecutions v W. [2018] IESCDET 99. The applicant remained aggrieved as to the manner in which disclosure had been made in the context of the proceedings before the Circuit Court. Notwithstanding that the issue was fully ventilated before the Court of Appeal and the conviction upheld, the applicant sought an order of certiorari quashing the conviction. The respondents, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General, raised two procedural objections in their opposition papers: first, it was said that the judicial review proceedings represented an abuse of process and a collateral challenge to the judgment of the Court of Appeal; secondly, in any event, the proceedings were said to have been brought out of time.
Held by the High Court that the judicial review proceedings were inadmissible as an abuse of process in that they involved a collateral challenge to the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the applicant sought to have the High Court, under the guise of judicial review proceedings, overrule the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the judicial review proceedings had been brought outside the time-limit prescribed under Order 84, rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts; Order 84 prescribes a three-month time-limit for judicial review.
The Court held that the proceedings would be dismissed.
Application dismissed.
The applicant represented himself
Conor McKenna for the Director of Public Prosecutions instructed by the Chief Prosecution Solicitor
Mark Curran for the remaining respondents instructed by the Chief State Solicitor
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 25 August 2021
These judicial review proceedings seek to challenge the validity of a criminal conviction entered against the applicant and since upheld on appeal.
The applicant stands convicted of a single offence of assault causing harm contrary to section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. This conviction was entered following a three-day trial before a judge and jury in the Circuit Court in June and July 2013. This conviction was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal in a detailed written judgment delivered on 1 June 2017, People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. M.W. [2017] IECA 175. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 6 July 2018, Director of Public Prosecutions v. W. [2018] IESCDET 99.
The applicant remains aggrieved as to the manner in which disclosure had been made in the context of the proceedings before the Circuit Court. Notwithstanding that this issue was fully ventilated before the Court of Appeal and the conviction upheld, the applicant now seeks an order of certiorari quashing the conviction.
The respondents have raised two procedural objections in their opposition papers. First, it is said that the judicial review proceedings represent an abuse of process and a collateral challenge to the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Secondly, in any event, the proceedings are said to have been brought out of time. Order 84, rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts prescribes a three-month time-limit for judicial review.
The application for judicial review came on for hearing before me on 29 July 2021. The parties were requested to address the two procedural objections first. Judgment was reserved to today's date.
Finally, it should be noted that the parties are all agreed that there is no requirement to redact the title of these proceedings nor any need for reporting restrictions.
The criminal proceedings arise out of an incident on 4 January 2012. In order to understand this incident, however, it is necessary to commence the narrative at an earlier stage. This narrative is taken from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which in turn prepared the narrative from the transcript of the evidence before the Circuit Court.
The applicant and his estranged partner are the parents of a young child. It seems that an arrangement had been entered into between the parents whereby the applicant would be permitted to collect their child from a crèche on certain days. The arrangement involved the mother telephoning the manager of the crèche in advance to advise her that the applicant would be collecting the child.
On 3 January 2012, the manager of the crèche received an email from the mother revoking permission for the applicant to take the child from the crèche. The applicant attended at the crèche the next day (4 January 2012) and was not allowed to collect the child. There then followed an altercation between the applicant and members of the staff of the crèche. In the course of this altercation, the manager of the crèche suffered certain injuries to her nose. (At the subsequent trial, the manager would give evidence that the applicant had headbutted her straight into the face).
An Garda Síochána were called and arrested the applicant at the scene.
The applicant was subsequently charged, and ultimately convicted of a single offence of assault causing harm contrary to section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. This conviction was entered following a three-day trial before a judge and jury in the Circuit Court in June and July 2013. By order dated 11 October 2013, the Circuit Court imposed a three-year sentence of imprisonment, suspended for a period of three years.
Thereafter, the applicant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal. (The appeal against sentence was ultimately withdrawn).
Prior to the full hearing of the appeal before the Court of Appeal, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, on dates in May and October 2016, furnished the applicant with additional material in the form of two witness statements taken by An Garda Síochána in respect of a separate incident at the crèche, and handwritten notes prepared by members of the staff of the crèche facility in January 2012 and a handwritten note prepared by the manager in March 2012. This material had not been furnished to the applicant in advance of the trial before the Circuit Court in June/July 2013. The Director acknowledges that this material should have been provided.
One of the principal grounds of appeal advanced before the Court of Appeal had been that the applicant had been prejudiced in his defence by the non-disclosure of this material. In particular, it was asserted by the applicant that the undisclosed witness statement could have been used to cross-examine the complainant, i.e. the manager of the crèche facility, and to demonstrate that she was an unreliable narrator prone to making improbable complaints.
The Court of Appeal, having noted that the undisclosed witness statement related to a different incident at the crèche, held that the ground of appeal did not engage with the actual evidence adduced in support of the prosecution case nor with the defence that had actually been advanced. It had never been put to the prosecution witnesses that they had fabricated their evidence or were in collusion inter se or with the complainant. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal found it hard to see how the witness statement would have been deployed in support of the defence actually run. Moreover, the undisclosed witness statement did not, in fact, establish that the complainant was an unreliable narrator prone to making improbable complaints.
As to the handwritten notes from March 2012, the Court of Appeal again noted that these related to a different incident. The court held that while the document ought to have been disclosed, there was no evidence to suggest that the document had been deliberately withheld or concealed. It was further held that there was no reality to the submission that the handwritten notes could have been deployed for the purpose of demonstrating that it was inconsistent in certain matters of detail with the formal statements given to An Garda Síochána, with a view to demonstrating that the complainant was an unreliable historian.
The Court of Appeal also rejected a submission that the handwritten notes revealed that a relative of the complainant had made an improper intervention in the decision to prosecute.
Insofar as a separate series of handwritten notes made by the members of the staff of the crèche facility (including the complainant) in January 2012 were concerned, the Court of Appeal held as follows (at paragraphs 130 to 132).
“Overall Impression
This Court has considered, in the case of each of the witnesses in question, the undisclosed statements, the formal statements made to An Garda Síochána, and the testimony actual given before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial