Lynch v Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from an ex parte application by the Applicant, a litigant in person, seeking leave to apply for judicial review aimed at preventing an impending prosecution for an alleged minor assault. The alleged incident occurred on 27^th November 2022 at a dwelling in County Dublin. The Applicant was investigated by a Garda who invited her to make a statement under caution and informed her of her right to legal representation. Subsequently, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) directed prosecution for the alleged offence, and the Applicant was notified accordingly, including of the Adult Caution Scheme and the possibility of a summons if the caution was declined.

The Applicant lodged a complaint with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) regarding the conduct of the investigating Garda, the Garda who served the summons, and the Superintendent of the Garda Station. She received a District Court summons for a hearing scheduled in April 2025, which she denies is founded on any valid basis. The Applicant communicated with the DPP and other respondents expressing her intention to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the prosecution's constitutional and legal basis, highlighting alleged procedural irregularities and constitutional infringements.

The Applicant seeks multiple declaratory and compensatory reliefs, challenging the constitutionality of the Adult Caution Scheme, the prosecutorial authority of the DPP, and the summary prosecution process under the relevant legislation and constitutional provisions.

The application is at the leave stage and the court has directed that the application be heard on notice to the DPP, the Garda Commissioner, and the Attorney General, with the court-appointed solicitors joined as an intended notice party. The matter is adjourned for hearing on 1^st April 2025.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the DPP and/or An Garda Síochána possess constitutional authority to institute and conduct summary prosecutions under the relevant statutory framework and constitutional provisions, specifically Article 30.3 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the Adult Caution Scheme is unconstitutional, unlawful, and illegal as alleged by the Applicant.
3. Whether the prosecution of the Applicant for the alleged minor assault is lawful and supported by a prima facie case consistent with DPP guidelines and constitutional requirements.
4. The constitutional validity of legislative Acts and statutory provisions enabling summary prosecutions post-1937 Constitution.
5. The extent to which prosecutorial functions exercised by the DPP and Gardaí comply with the separation of powers and other constitutional guarantees, including Articles 6, 30.3, 34.3, 35.2, 40.1, 40.3, and 40.4 of the Constitution of Ireland.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contends that the summary prosecution initiated by the DPP violates Article 30.3 of the Constitution, which limits prosecutorial powers.
• She asserts that the legislative Acts enabling such prosecutions, including the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act 1924 and subsequent statutes, are invalid or unconstitutional insofar as they conflict with constitutional provisions.
• The Applicant alleges that Gardaí prosecuting their own investigations creates a conflict of interest breaching Articles 38.1 and 40.3 of the Constitution.
• She challenges the constitutionality and legality of the Adult Caution Scheme and seeks declarations that it is unlawful and that victims should be compensated and records expunged.
• The Applicant claims that the Respondents have acted deceptively and negligently, infringing her constitutional rights and personal liberties.
• She seeks various declaratory orders, compensation for alleged infringements, quashing of the prosecution, and directions to ensure prosecutions comply strictly with constitutional parameters.
• The Applicant relies extensively on constitutional provisions (Articles 6, 30.3, 34.3, 35.2, 40.1, 40.3, 40.4), statutory interpretation, and case law to support her claims.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the complex constitutional and statutory framework governing prosecutorial powers, including the role of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Constitution and relevant legislation such as the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act 1924, the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, and the Garda Síochána Act 2005 as amended.

The court noted the Applicant's extensive constitutional challenges to the prosecutorial function and the summary prosecution process but emphasized the established legal principles requiring a low threshold of arguability at the leave stage for judicial review applications. The court referred to recent authoritative decisions, including Sutton v DPP, to frame the test for granting leave.

The court also highlighted the reluctance of Superior Courts to grant prohibitory relief against imminent trials, as expressed in Nash v DPP, due to the importance of live evidence and trial context in assessing fairness and procedural issues.

Considering the legislative provisions and recent Supreme Court authority in The DPP (at the suit of Garda Liam Varley) v Ciaran Davitt & The Attorney General, the court recognized the statutory and constitutional validity of the prosecutorial functions exercised by the DPP and Gardaí.

Given the nature of the application and the grounds raised, the court concluded that the leave application should proceed on notice to the relevant parties to allow full submissions and proper adjudication of the issues raised.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ON NOTICE, directing that the application be heard with the DPP, Garda Commissioner, and Attorney General as intended respondents, and the court-appointed solicitors joined as an intended notice party.

The court ordered service of all relevant documents on the intended respondents and parties by specified deadlines and adjourned the matter for hearing on 1^st April 2025.

The decision does not resolve the substantive constitutional challenges but establishes procedural directions to enable a full hearing on the merits. No new precedent was set by this order; rather, it follows established principles governing judicial review leave applications and prosecutorial authority.