Man fails in bid to prosecute bankers

Dublin hotelier Patrick Halpin’s bid to privately prosecute two employees of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation for alleged deception was motivated by a desire to put them in the dock of a criminal court, the Supreme Court has decided.

“Mr Halpin was not motivated by a genuine desire to invoke the now very limited role of a private individual in the prosecution of criminal offences,” Mr Justice Frank Clarke stated in a reserved judgment.

“He was motivated by a desire to secure, by whatever means possible, the attendance of Ms (Mary) Kelly and Mr (Declan) Buckley as accused persons before a criminal court.”

Mr Justice Clarke made his finding in a successful appeal to the Supreme Court by Ms Kelly, a case manager with IBRC’s Recovery Management Division, and former IBRC director of banking, Mr Buckley, against a High Court refusal to block Mr Halpin’s district court prosecutions.

The court was satisfied the commencement of the district court criminal proceedings was an abuse of process and quashed the summonses taken out by Mr Halpin.

Mr Justice Clarke said there was a fundamental flaw in the issuing of the summonses because of the absence of any evidence that there was an arguable or prima facie case that either or both Ms Kelly and Mr Buckley had been guilty of a deception and inducement with the intention of causing loss to Mr Halpin.

He said that the proceedings before the district court involved an abuse of process.

The judge said Mr Halpin had been aggrieved by the way he had been treated in the course of dealings with the bank officials and had taken the view there was at least some element of criminal offence on their part in the manner in which they had dealt with him.

The judge said the most far reaching issue in the case arose from a contention by Ms Kelly and Mr Buckley to the effect that a range of recent legislative developments had terminated the private prosecution of criminal offences.

The court found that while criminal prosecutions could still be taken out privately, they had, at an early stage, to be taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions and progressed to trial on indictment or otherwise dealt with.

The Supreme Court had heard Mr Halpin alleged he had been invited to a meeting with Ms Kelly and Mr Buckley in February 2012 after demands had been served on two of his companies, Elektron Holdings Limited and Crossplan Investments Ltd, seeking repayment of debts of more than €25m.

Mr Halpin claimed he was under the impression the meeting had been called to continue a process whereby the companies could continue to trade while arrangements were implemented in relation to repayment of the debts.

He alleged that at the time of the meeting, both Ms Kelly and Mr Buckley were aware that a decision had already been made to appoint a receiver to both companies which had registered offices at 53-55 Park Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin.

Ms Kelly and Mr Buckley had contested Mr Halpin’s account of the facts.