McKay's (Daithi) and Bryson's (Jamie) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Keegan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NIQB 110 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 26 November 2021 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NIQB 110
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: KEE11673
ICOS No: 21/226649
21/36798/01
Delivered: 26/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
BEFORE A DIVISIONAL COURT
___________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY DAITHI McKAY
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JAMIE BRYSON
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
___________
Between:
DAITHI McKAY
and
JAMIE BRYSON
Applicants
and
DOWNPATRICK MAGISTRATES COURT
Respondent
___________
Mr Martin O’Rourke QC with Mr Desmond Hutton QC (instructed by Madden &
Finucane Solicitors) for the First Applicant Mr McKay
Mr John Larkin QC with Mr Alistair Fletcher (instructed by Phoenix Law Solicitors) for
the Second Applicant Mr Bryson
Dr Tony McGleenan QC with Mr Philip Henry BL (instructed by the Departmental
Solicitor’s Office) for the Public Prosecution Service
Mr Joseph Kennedy (instructed by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office) for the
District Judge
Mr Mark Mulholland QC with Mr Eugene McKenna (instructed by O’Muirigh Solicitors)
for the Notice Party Mr Thomas O’Hara
___________
Before: Keegan LCJ, Treacy LJ and Maguire LJ
___________
2
KEEGAN LCJ
Introduction
[1] In this case both applicants Daithí McKay and Jamie Bryson seek judicial
review of their committal by a Magistrates Court on 5 March 2021 for trial on
indictment in relation to the charge of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public
office. A third person, Mr Thomas O’Hara, was also committed for trial on the same
date and on the same charge. He has not brought a judicial review but he is a notice
party to these proceedings. Leave was granted on the papers.
[2] The grounds upon which the applicants seek judicial review are essentially
these:
(a) That the committal was procedurally unfair;
(b) That there was no evidence upon which the District Judge could have
committed for trial in relation to the elements of the specific offence; and
(c) That committal for this offence was in breach of Article 7 and Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”).
[3] The committal order having issued, the arraignment of the three accused was
listed for a date in April 2021 before the Crown Court. That has been held in
abeyance pending these judicial review proceedings. We were also told that a
certificate for hearing before a judge alone rather than jury was issued and is under
separate legal challenge.
[4] In response to the applications it was submitted that the court could properly
return the applicants for trial and, in any event, that this was not an appropriate case
for judicial review of the decision of the District Judge as there was sufficient remedy
in the Crown Court applying the principles from the case of R v DPP ex parte Kebeline
[2002] AC 326.
Factual Background
[5] The prosecution arose out of events relating to the working of the Committee
for Finance and Personnel (CFP) of the Northern Ireland Assembly which occurred
in September 2015. At that time Mr Daithí McKay was a Member of the Legislative
Assembly (MLA) and Chair of the Committee. The CFP conducted a review of the
sale of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) property loan portfolio in
Northern Ireland at this time. As the papers illustrate and as is common case this
sale had become controversial with allegations that there was corruption in the sale
and it was obviously a matter of public interest. In parallel to the Assembly
Committee’s review an investigation was undertaken into the NAMA process by the
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Bassalat's (Issam) Application (Leave stage) and in the matter of decisions of The Public Prosecution Service and District Judge (Magistrates Courts) Ranaghan
...quashing the impugned decisions. The law in relation to committal proceedings [14] In the case of McKay and another’s Application [2021] NIQB 110, the Divisional Court had cause to consider judicial review of committal proceedings. This decision at para [29] refers to the committal test as ......
-
Parker (Anthony) and Caldwell's (James) Application
...Divisional Court, save in exceptional circumstances – see R v DPP ex p Kebilene [2000] 2 AC 326. [13] In Re Bryson & McKay’s Application [2021] NIQB 110, this court recently reviewed the jurisprudence in relation to satellite litigation in criminal proceedings. Keegan LCJ stated: “This cour......