Please allow ads as they help fund our trusted local news content.
Kindly add us to your ad blocker whitelist.
If you want further access to Ireland's best local journalism, consider contributing and/or subscribing to our free daily Newsletter .
Support our mission and join our community now.
Subscribe Today!
To continue reading this article, you can subscribe for as little as €0.50 per week which will also give you access to all of our premium content and archived articles!
Alternatively, you can pay €0.50 per article, capped at €1 per day.
Thank you for supporting Ireland's best local journalism!
Man convicted of falsely imprisoning Kevin Lunney ordered to pay State’s costs in his failed appeal
Ms Justice Tara Burns said that the legal issues raised by career criminal Alan Harte were 'moot'
Man convicted of falsely imprisoning Kevin Lunney ordered to pay State’s costs in his failed appeal
Reporter:
Fiona Magennis
04 Feb 2025 6:00 PM
Email:
Court Reporter
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 (Tuesday, February 4) after Ms 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, said the court had dealt with the matter and: We say costs follow the event. There is no reason to depart from that.”
Granting the order, Ms Justice Kennedy the position was 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 judgement 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 Dail Eireann 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.
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
4
To continue reading this article, please subscribe and support local journalism!
Subscribing will allow you access to all of our premium content and archived articles.
Subscribe
To continue reading this article for FREE, please kindly register and/or log in.
Registration is absolutely 100% FREE and will help us personalise your experience on our sites. You can also sign up to our carefully curated newsletter(s) to keep up to date with your latest local news!
Subscribe or register today to discover more from DonegalLive.ie
Buy a paper
Buy the e-paper of the Donegal Democrat, Donegal People's Press, Donegal Post and Inish Times here for instant access to Donegal's premier news titles.
Keep up with the latest news from Donegal with our daily newsletter featuring the most important stories of the day delivered to your inbox every evening at 5pm.
