Tracey v Malone

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice John MacMenamin
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESC 21
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [APPEAL NO. 262/2009]
• Date: 30 April 2020

BETWEEN:

KEVIN TRACEY

APPELLANT

AND

DISTRICT JUDGE MIRIAM MALONE

AND

DISTRICT JUDGE BRIDGET REILLY, KEVIN GROGAN, RONAN COFFEY

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENTS

[2020] IESC 21

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

[APPEAL NO. 262/2009]

THE SUPREME COURT

Judicial review – Prosecution – Road traffic offences – Appellant seeking judicial review – Whether the respondent had unduly frustrated the appellant’s efforts to raise preliminary issues in court

Facts: The appellant, Mr Tracey, had been served with twelve summonses alleging various road traffic offences. The summonses were brought by the third and fourth respondents, Mr Grogan and Mr Coffey. The appellant sought orders quashing prior orders made by the first respondent, a District judge, and restraining further prosecution of the summonses before the second respondent, another District judge. The matter came before the first respondent in the District Court. The appellant sought to raise a series of preliminary issues. The first respondent fixed a hearing date of the 12th October, 2006, for a hearing of those issues. The second respondent was sitting on that date. The appellant applied for an adjournment on the grounds that he had been occupied in other courts dealing with other cases every day since he had received the submission of the fifth respondent, the Director of Public prosecutions (DPP). He submitted that he had not had time to prepare for the hearing. The second respondent refused to accede to that order. Before the High Court, the appellant made a number of complaints as to the conduct of the four-hour preliminary hearing before the second respondent. He complained that the respondent had refused his application to use the services of a contracted stenographer at that and previous hearings; that the respondent had unduly frustrated his efforts to raise each of preliminary issues in court; that he had been coerced into the witness box under threat of removal from the Court; that the second respondent had demanded that return to Court at 2.30 p.m. on the afternoon of the hearing with case law justifying his use of a McKenzie friend, proof of the identity of that McKenzie friend, and a copy of the registration certificate of the stenographer; and, that the second respondent had summoned the owner of the stenographer’s company into the witness box and requested the qualifications and identification of the stenographer. The appellant further claimed he was denied a fair hearing before the second respondent, that there was undue haste in proceeding to a trial of the summonses, and an inadequate separate hearing of the preliminary issues. The appellant also made a complaint that, on the earlier occasion when the matter had listed on a preliminary basis, a representative from the DPP’s Office had refused to give him his name. Finally, he raised an issue in relation to whether the summonses were in time. The appellant complained that the summonses had not been issued in accordance with ss. 10 and 12 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851. All these complaints were dealt with by the High Court in a reserved judgment which he delivered on the 20th January, 2009. The High Court judge refused to grant judicial review against the respondents. The appellant appealed against the judgment and order of the High Court.

Held by the Court that the High Court judge acted entirely correctly in each of the determinations he made.

The Court held that it would dismiss the appeal and uphold the High Court order.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment of Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 30 ^th day of April, 2020

1 The appellant appeals against a judgment and order of the High Court delivered on the 20 ^th January, 2009, wherein Cooke J. refused to grant judicial review against the respondents ( [2009] IEHC 14). The appellant had been served with twelve summonses alleging various road traffic offences (para. 1 of the High Court judgment). These included allegations that he had driven his car without insurance and had left the scene of an accident. The summonses were brought by the third and fourth-named respondents. The appellant sought orders quashing prior orders made by the first-named respondent and restraining further prosecution of the summonses before the second-named respondent.

2 The matter came before Judge Malone in the District Court. The appellant sought to raise a series of preliminary issues (para. 2). As these would take some considerable time, District Judge Malone fixed a hearing date of the 12 ^th October, 2006, for a hearing of those issues. The second-named respondent, District Judge Reilly, was sitting on that date. The only formal order made by Judge Malone was to fix the 12 ^th October, 2006, as a hearing date for the preliminary issues and the 20 ^th October, 2006, as the date when the summonses were to be adjourned for trial. Judge Malone’s role was to invite Mr. Tracey to lodge in Court, and furnish to the prosecution, written submissions on these preliminary issues by the 2 ^nd October, 2006, and asked the respondents to provide a submission by the 8 ^th October, 2006. There is no basis for any order against her.

3 The matter then came before Judge Reilly on the morning of 12 ^th October, 2006. The appellant applied for an adjournment on the grounds that he had been occupied in other courts dealing with other cases every day since he had received the DPP’s submission (para. 4). He submitted he had not had time to prepare for the hearing. Judge Reilly refused to accede to that order.

4 Before Cooke J., the appellant made a number of complaints as to the conduct of the four-hour preliminary hearing before Judge Reilly. He complained that the respondent had refused his application to use the services of a contracted stenographer at that and previous hearings (para. 15); that the respondent had unduly...