Inland Fisheries Ireland granted leave to challenge District Court over Co Kerry spawn case

High Court Reporter

The High Court has granted permission to Inland Fisheries Ireland to challenge a finding that brought an end to the prosecution of three men alleged to have 'injured or disturbed' spawning grounds by removing gravel from a Kerry river bed.

At the High Court this week, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) permission to pursue a judicial review to quash the May 2025 decision from Killarney District Court Judge David Waters, when he made "no order" in respect of the prosecutions and awarded costs against IFI.

The IFI is the state agency for protecting, managing and conserving Ireland's inland fisheries and sea angling resources.

The IFI submits that the District Judge ruled that "the mere fact that the solicitor who made the applications for the summonses [against the three men] was instructed by the IFI was not sufficient to authorise him to apply for summonses on IFI's behalf."

It is submitted that the judge ruled that only the IFI itself or another person authorised under statute could apply for the summonses before he decided the summonses were not properly before him, prompting him to make the "no order".

Remy Farrell SC, for IFI, successfully applied to the High Court this week to pursue a challenge arguing that the summonses were correctly authorised.

The IFI argues that the application for the issue of a summons may be made "by or on behalf" of the Attorney General, the DPP, a member of An Garda Síochana or any person authorised to do so under statute.

In its grounding statement of claim, the IFI claims that the three men "injured or disturbed spawning grounds and spawn in and around the removal of gravel from the bed of the river Gaddagh at Whitefield, Beaufort, Killarney Co Kerry".

Mr Farrell told Judge Gearty that the alleged offence of removing stone from river beds disturbing wildlife carries a possible custodial sentence and that the matter was a "relatively serious" one.

Mr Farrell said the "net point" of the challenge was that IFI was deemed not entitled to apply for a summons in the manner they did.

The IFI said that in law any summons purporting to be such is presumed to have been duly applied for, and issued.

"In conducting an inquiry into the purported invalidity of the summonses, the judge exceeded his jurisdiction insofar as he purported to require proof of the validity where that was not an issue before the District judge on evidence or at all," the IFI submitted.

The IFI also claimed that because no order was made in the case at the District Court level that they had no right of appeal and had to apply for judicial review.

Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the review and adjourned the matter to December.