Mooney v DPP

JudgeMr Justice Garrett Simons
Judgment Date10 September 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] IEHC 647
Docket Number2018 No. 1067 J.R.
CourtHigh Court
Date10 September 2019

[2019] IEHC 647



Garrett Simons

2018 No. 1067 J.R.


Jurisdiction – Criminal proceedings – Harassment – Injured party requesting the High Court to address the question of the District Court’s jurisdiction – Whether the case should have been escalated to the Circuit Court to be dealt with on the basis of a jury trial

Facts: The underlying criminal proceedings involved an offence of harassment pursuant to s. 10 of the Non-Fatal Injuries against the Person Act 1997. The injured party appeared before the High Court as a litigant in person. The injured party requested the court to address a distinct issue which was the question of the District Court’s jurisdiction. The injured party made the point that the offence in respect of which the accused, Mr Mooney, had pleaded guilty had a devastating effect on her both psychiatrically and psychologically, and she felt that the case was not one which should be dealt with at the District Court level but should have been escalated to the Circuit Court to be dealt with on the basis of a jury trial, and would then attract the more serious penalties which are applicable to a trial on indictment.

Held by the court that the question of the correctness or otherwise of the acceptance of jurisdiction by the District Court simply was not a matter in this case and it was not a matter before the court. The court held that even if it were something that it could revisit, given the particular chronology in this case, it would work an injustice to do so.

The court held that the matter was to go back to the District Court to be dealt with as a summary matter only, and that the accused was bound by his previously entered plea of guilty.

Proceedings remitted to District Court.

NOTE OF EX TEMPORE RULING of Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 10 September 2019.

This ruling is delivered supplemental to the principal judgment which was delivered in these judicial review proceedings on 23 August 2019, Mooney v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] IEHC 625.


It is important to emphasise at the outset the nature of the jurisdiction which this court is exercising. As explained in detail in the principal judgment, this is not an appeal on the merits. Rather, the matter comes before the High Court by way of supervisory jurisdiction.


As it happens, on the particular facts of this case, there was a significant dispute between the parties as to whether the case was one which was properly one for the High Court or should, instead, have been dealt with by way of an appeal to the Circuit Court. That particular issue was resolved in favour of allowing judicial review for the reasons set out at paragraphs 28 to 33 of the principal judgment.


There is consent this morning between the parties as to the form of order including, in particular, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT