Career criminal Alan Harte, who is serving a 30-year sentence for the kidnap and torture of Quinn Industrial Holdings director Kevin Lunney, will have to pay the State’s costs in his failed appeal relating to the State’s decision to try him in the non-jury Special Criminal Court.
Harte (43) was convicted of falsely imprisoning and causing serious harm to Mr Lunney at Drumbrade, Ballinagh, Co Cavan on 17 September 2019 contrary to the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. Mr Lunney was abducted by a group of men and assaulted while being falsely imprisoned, with Harte inflicting most of his serious injuries, including knife wounds to his face and torso.
Harte had appealed the High Court’s refusal to hear his bid to have the decision judicially reviewed, despite his lawyers acknowledging that even if he had not been the subject of a time restriction, he would have lost his case.
Costs in the action were awarded against Harte at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday after Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the three-judge panel found no reason to depart from the normal procedure, noting that parties successful in proceedings were entitled to costs unless the court determined otherwise.
In seeking the order for costs, David Fennelly SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), said the court had dealt with the matter and that costs follow the event. “There is no reason to depart from that.”
Granting the order, Ms Justice Kennedy said the position was that the Court of Appeal had proceeded to address the issue of mootness in the case and found in favour of the State.
“It is quite clear the appellant was unsuccessful,” she said. “We see no reason to depart from the normal procedure,” she added, going on to make an order for costs in favour of the State against Harte.
Delivering judgment on Harte’s appeal at the three-judge court last month, Ms Justice Tara Burns said that the legal issues raised by Harte were “moot” and that the justice of the matter, having regard to case law, did not require the court to depart from the rule against hearing moot cases.
Harte was charged in November 2019 and the DPP determined that the ordinary courts were inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace.
He was tried before the Special Criminal Court, but sought to judicially review the decision of the DPP to do so, on the basis that Part V of the 1939 Act was a temporary measure and the Special Criminal Court’s continued existence some 49 years after the initial Proclamation under Part V was “ultra vires” (beyond the powers).
However, the High Court held that Harte had brought his case outside the three-month time limit identified in the Rules of the Superior Courts and refused an application for an extension of time.
A ruling in another case also came before the Supreme Court, which found that no duty attaches to Dáil Éireann to continuously review the necessity of the Special Criminal Court.
At the appeal hearing last November, Michael O’Higgins SC representing Harte, acknowledged that had his client not been the subject of a time restriction, he would have lost his case.
“Access to court is one of the most important rights of the Constitution. You’re entitled to go to court and lose your case,” he said, however, adding that Harte never got to argue his case.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
