Quigley (Arthur), McCusker (John Joseph) and Quigley’s (Seamus) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NIQB 132 |
| Date | 06 December 2010 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2010 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NIQB 132 Ref:
McCL8021
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
06/12/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
Quigley (Arthur), McCusker (John Joseph) and Quigley’s (Seamus) Application
[2010] NIQB 132
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ARTHUR QUIGLEY, JOHN
JOSEPH MCCUSKER AND SEAMUS QUIGLEY FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
________
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of a
District Judge whereby the summary trial of the Applicants was adjourned. The
relevant factual matrix, at this stage of the proceedings, is uncontentious.
II FACTUAL MATRIX
[2] The Applicants are charged with assorted public order offences. These
include two charges of assaulting two separate police constables in the execution of
their duties. It is alleged that these offences occurred on 13th April 2009. The
Applicants are prosecuted pursuant to a summons dated 30th August 2009. Some
fifteen months later, their trial still has to take place.
[3] The course of the Applicants’ prosecution to date has entailed the
adjournment of the summons at Enniskillen Magistrates’ Court, all at the instigation
of the prosecution, on three separate occasions. The first of the adjournments under
scrutiny occurred on 9th December 2009. This was followed by two further
adjournments, on 13th May and 30th September 2010. All of these adjournments have
two particular features in common. The first is that on each occasion the case had
been specially listed for the purpose of a contested hearing. The second is that, again
on each occasion, the reason proffered for the adjournment application and the
intention to apply for an adjournment was not expressed until the morning of trial.
On the occasion of the first and third adjournments, the reason advanced concerned
2
the unavailability of a prosecution witness to attend court. The second adjournment
was based upon a representation to the court by the prosecution that some further
material had just been received from the police and that this could bear on the
prosecutor’s duty of disclosure.
[4] The Applicants seek leave to apply for judicial review of the third of the
aforementioned adjournments of their summary trial. While this decision was made
on 30th September 2010, there was some delay in initiating these proceedings. Papers
were not filed until 12th November 2010. In the particular circumstances, this may be
viewed as somewhat tardy, though probably not fatally so, bearing in mind the by
now well known requirement enshrined in Order 53, Rule 4(1) of the Rules of the
Court of Judicature, which provides that an application for leave to apply for judicial
review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date
when grounds for the application first arose, unless the court considers that there is
good reason for extending time. In the events which have occurred, this delay has
given rise to certain practical consequences of significance.
[5] When the papers were initially lodged, the court signalled that there were
certain deficiencies in the Order 53 Statement and, simultaneously, requested
information on the date when the Applicants’ adjourned trial is to proceed. The
propriety of initiating three separate judicial review applications, where it appeared
that a composite application on behalf of all three Applicants would suffice, was also
raised. This stimulated the provision of an amended Order 53 Statement, now
containing adequate particulars, while also addressing the court’s concern about a
multiplicity of applications. Furthermore, the court was informed that the
Applicants’ trial is now scheduled for 12th January 2011 and will also be the subject
of a review hearing on 20th December 2010. Accordingly, the Applicants are
scheduled to be tried approximately five weeks hence.
III THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE ISSUES
[6] One of the main issues debated during the inter-partes leave hearing was
whether, in these circumstances, there is any practical and effective remedy which
can be granted by this court. The primary relief sought by the Applicant is an Order
of Certiorari quashing the adjournment decision of 30th September 2010. It seems to
me important to reflect on the relevant practical realities. On 30th September 2010,
the “cast” in attendance at the lower court consisted of a specially designated District
Judge; prosecuting counsel; Applicants’ counsel and solicitor; all prosecution
witnesses, except one; and all three Applicants. This raises a question of an intensely
pragmatic nature: if the impugned decision is quashed, how is the District Judge to
proceed? This would not be a case of a Minister or senior public official or other
public authority having to reconduct a purely paper, desktop exercise in reaction to
a quashing order of the High Court. Rather, the context of the present challenge is
one where the District Judge, in the presence of the aforementioned cast, had only
two choices: either to accede to the adjournment application or to refuse it. The
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Gracey (Damien Patrick Matthew) and Sean Paul Fitzsimmons' Applications (Leave Stage)
...At paragraph [16] Morgan LCJ expressed agreement with paragraph [30] of the judgment of McCloskey J in Re Quigley and Others [2010] NIQB 132 when he set out the following general principles: “The overarching general principle which emerges is that it is in the public interest that every per......
-
Morrison's (Maria) Application and The Director of Public Prosecutions Application
...cases which we summarise below. Much of this material repeats a discussion of this issue by McCloskey J in Re Quigley and others [2010] NIQB 132. [4] In R v Hereford Magistrate’s Court ex parte Rowlands [1998] QB 110 the applicant received late disclosure of two witness statements which wer......
-
Millar’s (Darren) Application and Director of Public Prosecutions Applications
...cases which we summarise below. Much of this material repeats a discussion of this issue by McCloskey J in Re Quigley and others [2010] NIQB 132. [4] In R v Hereford Magistrates’ Court ex parte Rowlands [1998] QB 110 the applicant received late disclosure of two witness statements which wer......
-
Fionda's (Maria (A Minor)) Application by her mother and next friend Rona McDaid
...an adjudication of guilt or innocence and should not ordinarily be concluded in any other way” per McCloskey J in Re Quigley and Others [2010] NIQB 132. In this case I consider that the applicant could well feel that there had been a considerable injustice visited upon her if her attempt to......
Request a trial to view additional results