Sparrow v Connellan and Minister for Agriculture and Food

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice de Valera
• Judgment Date: 22 June 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] IEHC 231
• Docket Number: [No. 668 JR/2004]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 22 June 2006

SPARROW v JUDGE CONNELLAN & MIN FOR AGRICULTURE

BETWEEN:

DERMOT SPARROW

APPLICANT

AND

JUDGE MURROUGH CONNELLAN

FIRST NAMED RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (PROSECUTOR)

SECOND NAMED RESPONDENT

[2006] IEHC 231

[No. 668 JR/2004]

THE HIGH COURT

CRIMINAL LAW:

Delay

Bias - Right to fair trial - Right to trial with expedition - Prosecutorial delay - Summons issued two years after incidents - Further adjournments of hearing in District Court -Apparent bias - Whether conduct of judge gave rise to appearance of bias - Delay in seeking relief - O'Flynn v Clifford [1988] IR 740, Blood v DPP [2005] IESC 8 (Unrep, SC,2/3/2005) and Dublin Well Woman Centre v Ireland [1995] 1 ILRM 408 applied - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O84, r 21 - Diseases of Animals Acts 1966 (No6), s 49(1) - National Beef Assurance Scheme Act 2000 (No 2), ss 26 and 35 - Order made prohibiting first respondent from hearing trial; other reliefs refused (2004/668JR - de Valera J - 22/6/2006) [2006] IEHC 231 Sparrow v Judge Connellan

: The applicant sought orders of certiorari and prohibition of charges relating to Foot & Mouth Disease on grounds of delay in prosecution from the date of the offence to the date of service of the summons and from the date of the summon to the hearing date and on the grounds of perceived bias arising from statements and actions of the first respondent.

Held by de Valera J., that certain periods of delay had been caused largely by applications on behalf of the applicant and the applicant had not objected to adjournment applications on behalf of the respondent. While no evidence of actual bias was apparent, an independent reasonable person might legitimately conclude that a fair and independent hearing could not take place and an order of prohibition would be granted in this regard.

Reporter: E.F.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S49(1)(h)

NATIONAL BEEF ASSURANCE ACT 2000 S35

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 S49(1)(I)

NATIONAL BEEF ASSURACE SCHEME 2000 S26

O'FLYNN v CLIFFORD 1988 IR 740

BLOOD v DPP UNREP SUPREME 2.3.2005 2005/5/844

RSC O.84 r21

O'CONNELL v FAWSITT 1986 IR 362

DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE v IRELAND & ORS 1995 1 ILRM 408

Mr. Justice de Valera

1 On the 8th April, 2003, the second named respondent initiated proceedings against the applicant in respect of offences alleged to have been committed on the 9th April, 2001.

2 The offences with which the applicant was charged were:

3 1. That he did grant or issue an instrument to wit a Foot and Mouth Disease five form so issued on the 9th April, 2001, at Jigginstown, Naas, Co. Kildare in contravention of s. 49(1)(h) of the Diseases of Animals Act,1966 to 2001 (as amended by s. 35 of the National Beef Assurance Act, 2000) and,

4 2. That the applicant did offer an instrument so issued on the 9th April, 2001, at Jigginstown, Naas, Co. Kildare in contravention of s. 49(1)(i) of the Disease of Animals Act1966 to 2001 (as amended by s. 35 of the National Beef Assurance Act, 2000).

5 The summons are required to be served within two years of the date of the alleged offence pursuant to s. 26 of the National Beef Assurance Scheme, 2000 and were in fact served on the 8th April, 2003, one day within the allowed time.

6 The return date for the summons was 27th May, 2003, and on this date the matter was adjourned.

7 The matter was then adjourned on ten further occasions until the 15th July, 2004, on which date, having heard various arguments, the first named respondent indicated that he would proceed to hear the charges on the 3rd and 4th August, 2004.

8 On the 26th July, 2004, O'Neill J. granted the applicants leave to seek orders ofcertiorari and prohibition against the respondents and stay the proceedings which had been initiated by way of the summons referred to above.

9 The applicant seeks orders ofcertiorari and prohibition on the grounds of:

a (A) Delay in prosecution, and

...