Webster v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a litigant in person, was present in The City on 10 January 2021 during Covid-19 restrictions at the location of an anti-lockdown protest. Two summonses issued alleging breaches of s.31A(8)(a) and (12) (failure to comply with a Garda direction) and s.31A(6) (leaving residence without reasonable excuse). The Plaintiff did not attend the District Court and was convicted in her absence on 24 October 2023 and fined (€300 on each count). The Plaintiff obtained an extension of time to appeal; the appeal was reheard de novo in the Circuit Court (transcript records the rehearing on 15 October 2024). The Circuit Court dismissed one charge, upheld the other and reduced the fine to €200. Judicial review proceedings were commenced in January 2025, leave granted ex parte in May 2025, and the Defendant filed opposition in November 2025. The Plaintiff also sought strike-out of the Defendant's opposition and a protective costs order (PCO). Judge Phelan delivered the ruling on 12 June 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Circuit Court conviction and fine (for leaving residence without reasonable excuse under s.31A(6) of the Health Act 1947) should be quashed by way of judicial review on grounds including lack of notice, delay and breach of fair procedures.
2. Whether the Statement of Opposition filed by the Defendant should be struck out in whole or in part.
3. Whether a Protective Costs Order should be granted in favour of the Plaintiff.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contends she never received the District Court summons, was not on notice of the District Court proceedings and was convicted in absence without knowing of the case.
• The Plaintiff asserts delay prejudiced her ability to gather evidence (notably video footage) and defend herself.
• The Plaintiff claims she had a lawful reason (visit to a chemist for medication) and alternatively asserts a citizen-journalist justification; she complains of breaches of constitutional fair procedures (Article 40.3) and Article 6 ECHR.
• The Plaintiff seeks strike-out of the Defendant's Opposition as improperly advancing merits and irrelevant facts, and seeks a PCO on grounds of limited means and public-law importance.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant asserts the prosecution and service of summons were lawful and that the Plaintiff was notified (in person and by letter) of the District Court hearing.
• The Defendant contends the Plaintiff participated in and helped organise the protest, was warned and cautioned multiple times and failed to provide a reasonable excuse.
• The Defendant argues the Plaintiff had a full de novo rehearing in the Circuit Court and was afforded fair procedures; any alleged errors are within jurisdiction and not reviewable.
• The Defendant opposes a PCO, contending the case is personal in nature, lacks exceptional public importance and the normal costs regime should apply.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court addressed the three motions in turn.

1. Application to strike out the Defendant's Statement of Opposition: the Court accepted it possessed jurisdiction to strike out pleadings in judicial review but emphasised the power is to be exercised sparingly. The Statement of Opposition set out factual and legal grounds, was particularised and put materially relevant evidence (including service and the Plaintiff's activities) before the Court. Material not before the trial court may be relevant to discretionary relief in judicial review. The Plaintiff had not engaged with or sought to challenge the Defendant's affidavit evidence (including by affidavit or cross-examination). On that basis, and absent scandalous or abusive material, strike-out relief was refused.

2. Application for a Protective Costs Order (PCO): the Court reviewed authorities establishing that PCOs are exceptional, listing the Browne criteria. The Court found the proceedings were personal and fact-specific, did not raise points of law of general public importance, and the Plaintiff had not shown the requisite merits or absence of a private interest. The Court also noted proportionality concerns (the Plaintiff pursuing judicial review against a €200 fine and not averring she could not continue without a PCO). The PCO application was refused.

3. Judicial review substantive challenge: on notice, the Court found unchallenged affidavit evidence that the Plaintiff had been served and orally notified of hearing dates. Even if lack of notice were accepted, the Circuit Court rehearing was de novo and cured any such unfairness. The DAR showed the Plaintiff received a full rehearing with safeguards (the Judge accommodating her hearing impairment, limiting evidence to the charges, permitting cross-examination). The Court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the Circuit Court conviction: the trial judge preferred Garda evidence that the Plaintiff failed to give a reasonable excuse when asked. The Plaintiff's belated claim of attending a chemist was not accepted because she had not given that explanation contemporaneously; the citizen-journalist argument was not pressed and was unaccompanied by authority. The Court found the delay alleged did not establish prejudice that would render the conviction unfair. On these bases the judicial review relief lacked merit.

Holding and Implications

JUDICIAL REVIEW REFUSED

Direct effects: the Plaintiff's application for judicial review is refused; the motion to strike out the Defendant's Statement of Opposition is dismissed; the application for a Protective Costs Order is refused. The Court concluded the Circuit Court's conviction on the charge of leaving residence without reasonable excuse was supported by sufficient evidence and that procedural safeguards were observed at the de novo hearing.

No novel legal principle was established: the decision applies existing jurisprudence on strike-out, PCOs and judicial review relief; the ruling does not purport to create a new precedent beyond application of established tests to the facts of this case.