JOURNALIST Eamon Dunphy is to appear before a district court to answer charges for 10 alleged road traffic offences. The date will be agreed with the State, according to Mr Padraig Ferry, Mr Dunphy's solicitor.
He was speaking yesterday after Mr Dunphy lost his Supreme Court appeal against a district judge's decision to issue a warrant for his arrest.
The judge had issued the warrant in May 1993. This followed Mr Dunphy's failure to appear personally in Dublin District Court to answer 10 summonses for alleged road traffic offences, including driving without tax and insurance.
Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling of the High Court, which found that Judge Timothy Crowley had been entitled to issue the warrant on May 31st, 1993. While Mr Dunphy was not in the District Court on that occasion he had instructed a solicitor to appear on his behalf.
The Supreme Court ruled that Mr Dunphy, having been served with the summonses, was under an obligation to attend at the time and place stated in them.
Mr Justice Blayney, giving the judgment, said: "His failure to do so amounted to disobedience to the summonses and entitled Judge Crowley, in the exercise of his discretion, to issue the warrant for his arrest."
Mr Dunphy, who was not present in court yesterday, was stopped by a garda on May 31st, 1992, while driving a car in Watling Street, Dublin. Almost one year later he was served with the 10 summonses under the Road Traffic Act ordering him to appear in court on May 31st 1993 to answer the charges.
Mr Dunphy's counsel argued in the High Court and Supreme Court that he did not fail to appear in the District Court because he had instructed a solicitor to appear on his behalf. He had phoned his solicitor on May 28th, 1993, instructing him to appear on May 31st. On the morning of May 31st, Mr Dunphy had again phoned his solicitor and instructed him that he was unable to attend court and that the solicitor should seek an adjournment to give him time to locate relevant documentation.
The solicitor attended court on May 31st and, when the case was called, told Judge Crowley that his instructions were to apply for an adjournment, that his client was down the country on business, and that he (Mr Dunphy) required time to secure the relevant document.
In an affidavit, Mr Patrick McGonagle, the solicitor, said Judge Crowley then asked the prosecuting garda what his attitude was and the garda seemed to indicate that he was leaving it in the judge's hands. Judge Crowley said he was issuing the warrant for the arrest of Mr Dunphy who, he said, should have appeared, particularly in relation to the insurance matter.
The Supreme Court found that Judge Crowley had three options to adjourn the case, to hear the complaint or to issue the warrant. Mr Dunphy's solicitor had not been briefed to defend the case and, as Judge Crowley decided there were no grounds for granting an adjournment, "the only option left to him was to issue a warrant for the appellant's arrest, as he did", Mr Justice Blayney said.
The High Court had found that Judge Crowley had power under Rule 40 of the District Court rules to issue a warrant for Mr Dunphy's arrest.