IN THE DISTRICT
COURT
District
Court Area of Ennis
District No. 12
Case No.: 2025/147632
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions
Applicant for Summons: Garda John Costello, Corofin, Co. Clare
Applicant misidentified
as the accused named on summons:
Peter
Dunne, DOB 20/10/1964 (by Circuit Court Order) / 07/05/1961 (by Garda
testimony and custody record), originally of Moyne Lower,
Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford (3 High Court DNA retention Orders).
Applicant (Moving
Party):
Peter
Ivan Dunne, DOB 24/10/1964, originally of Summerhill (Birth
Certificate, settled law.),
being the person unlawfully extradited and unlawfully proceeded
against in violation of the principle of speciality, hereby applies
to the Court to vindicate and restore his constitutional rights.
Given the procedural history and the State’s conduct described herein, the Applicant submits that service in this matter must be effected by email to the Court and to all parties, and additionally by WhatsApp to Garda John Costello.
The necessity for this arises from the following:
No Other Valid Means of Service: The Applicant has no lawful residence or address in Ireland at which service can be effected. Garda Costello and other Gardaí have been explicitly informed of this fact (see WhatsApp messages dated 26/08/2024 and 28/08/2024) and have nonetheless proceeded without addressing the service defect. This renders all prior attempts at service defective and necessitates alternative service.
Prior Notification and Reliance on Digital Communication: The Applicant has previously communicated and made formal legal demands via email and WhatsApp, including:
Notifications of violation of speciality and demands for disclosure (2024 onwards).
Formal legal complaint against Garda Costello (14/06/2025).
Ongoing correspondence between 11/06/2025 and 26/08/2025.
These communications have been recognised and engaged with by Gardaí, establishing email and WhatsApp as the practical and accepted means of communication in this matter.
Denial of Access and Financial Deprivation: The State’s denial of counsel, refusal to disclose documents, and interference with the Applicant’s legal rights have caused financial deprivation, preventing the Applicant from preparing or filing affidavits through conventional means. This deprivation leaves email and WhatsApp as the only viable methods for service, in order to preserve the Applicant’s right of access to the Court and to defend his interests.
Legal Basis for Alternative Service: Under the principles of due process (Article 38.1 and Article 40.3 of the Constitution; Article 6 ECHR) and in light of the unique circumstances of this case, service by email and WhatsApp constitutes proper and effective service. This method is consistent with established legal doctrine recognising alternative forms of service where ordinary means are unavailable, impractical, or refused.
Specific Service Directions: The Applicant therefore directs that:
Service of all filings, orders, and notices in this matter be effected by email to the Court and to all parties.
Service to Garda John Costello specifically be effected by WhatsApp to his known contact details.
Failure to recognise service by these means will constitute a further denial of due process and a breach of the Applicant’s constitutional and human rights.
(a) The summons names Peter
Dunne without any date
of birth or unique identifier.
(b) Conflicting dates of birth
are recorded in background
case evidence and records: 20
October 1964, 24 October 1964, and 7 May 1961.
(c) Conflicting
addresses appear: Moyne Lower, Summerhill, and Pullingstown.
(d)
The place of origin stated in
High Court DNA orders is
factually and legally exculpatory.
(e)
Without a lawful, stable address and without unique identifiers, the
identity of the accused cannot be established.
(f) These defects
breach proper procedure (The
State (O’Brien) v O’Brien
[1973] IR 50) and Article 38.1 of the Constitution of Ireland.
(g)
Order 15 rule 2(1) of the District Court Rules 1997 requires that a
summons “contain sufficient particulars to identify the
accused”.
(a) The summons cites the address
“Pullingstown, Marshalstown, Co. Wexford.”
(b) The
Applicant has had no lawful residence in Ireland since 28 April
1997.
(c) Any residence in Clare was compelled and temporary
while addressing miscarriage of justice and cannot constitute lawful
service (DPP v O’Shea [1982] IR 384).
(d) The
Applicant has never been to Pullingstown, Marshalstown, Co. Wexford;
the address does not appear on publicly available google maps at
all.
(e) Garda Costello knew the Applicant had left Ireland and
that no Irish address was valid for service.
(f) Addresses
compelled or arising from a speciality-violating extradition cannot
attach as valid service addresses.
(g) The principle of
speciality strictly prohibits any interference with liberty for a
matter other than that for which the person was extradited.
(a) The summons cites the address
“Pullingstown, Marshalstown, Co. Wexford.”
(b) The
Applicant has had no lawful residence in Ireland since 28 April
1997.
(c) Any residence in Clare was compelled and temporary
while addressing miscarriage of justice and cannot constitute lawful
service (DPP v O’Shea [1982] IR 384).
(d) The
Applicant has never been to Pullingstown, Marshalstown, Co. Wexford;
the address does not appear on publicly available google maps at
all.
(e) Garda Costello knew the Applicant had left Ireland and
that no Irish address was valid for service.
(f) Addresses
compelled or arising from a speciality-violating extradition cannot
attach as valid service addresses.
(g) The principle of
speciality strictly prohibits any interference with liberty for a
matter other than that for which the person was extradited.
(a) Obligation under the Sex
Offenders Act 2001 depends on a valid originating conviction and
sentence order.
(b) The founding order was obtained in violation
of the principle of speciality (Minister for Justice v. Stafford
[2009] IESC 83).
(c) All founding orders and related warrants
are void ab initio and ultra vires in respect of
the Applicant.
(d) Without a valid order, the entire basis for
the summons collapses.
(e) This summons itself is void on its
face.
(f) The summons was not validly served; it was obtained
via undisclosed multiparty communication.
(g) Garda John
Costello was fully aware of the violation of speciality and the use
of a third-party date of birth on the conviction and sentence
certificate upon which he relies.
(h) Gardaí refused to
disclose the relevant orders, even after the Applicant asserted the
right to such disclosure with full legal citations, thereby
compounding the procedural defect.
(a) Multiple conviction and
sentence certificates contain contradictory particulars: differing
dates of birth, omission of middle names, invalid addresses, and
inconsistent issue dates, including evidence of forgery.
(b)
Established Irish case law holds that such contradictions render
records “incurably uncertain” and therefore void (State
(O’Donnell) v District Justice Williams [1978] IR 1; State
(Harkin) v O’Neill [1982] ILRM 149; R v Bolton
Magistrates, ex p Scallon [1991] 2 QB 260).
(c) These
defects vitiate the entire case ab initio.
6.1 (a) The summons and related proceedings constitute a continuing abuse of process.
(b) Garda Costello knowingly used a false address and included dates when the Applicant was not in Ireland, thereby misrepresenting the facts and manipulating the procedural record.
(c) Such conduct constitutes deliberate misrepresentation and abuse of process (DPP v Quilligan & O’Reilly [1986] IR 495).
(d) The WhatsApp correspondence below evidences deliberate procedural misconduct by Garda Costello and An Garda Síochána:
Exhibit A – WhatsApp Messages
[29/07/2024 21:43] +353 85 878 1234: “Peter, Garda John Costello here Corofin Garda Station, Kilnaboy Road, Corofin, Co. Clare.”
[21/08/2024 09:33] +353 85 878 1234: “Peter, I need to speak to you about your current address…”
[21/08/2024 14:23] Peter Dunne: “We’re away until Monday, had to go see solicitor down country…”
[21/08/2024 15:07] +353 85 878 1234: “Absolutely john.a.costello@garda.ie…”
[26/08/2024 13:59] Peter Dunne: “Change of circumstances. Left Kilfenora and not returning. Will be leaving Ireland shortly.”
[26/08/2024 14:38] +353 85 878 1234: “…It’s classified as a visit…Otherwise facing prosecution on your return.”
[26/08/2024 15:08] Peter Dunne: “…You did say dob on the conviction and sentence was 20 October 1964, correct?”
[28/08/2024 15:32] +353 85 878 1234: “…after 3 days with no current address advised to An Garda Siochana, I will have to create a breach incident…”
[28/08/2024 16:30] Peter Dunne: “Pursuant to schedule 1 article 6 appoint a solicitor for me.”
[28/08/2024 16:41] +353 85 878 1234: “…Seek your own and appoint your own legal advisor.”
[28/08/2024 16:43] +353 85 878 1234: “…Cease communication on this forum…”
[28/08/2024 16:50] Peter Dunne: “Provide contact information for Dublin and the reason for my arrest…”
[02/02/2025 01:33] Peter Dunne: “PROVIDE COPY OF THE COURT ORDERS…”
(e) These exchanges show Gardaí acting without producing the legal authority for their actions, applying procedural steps without disclosure, and misrepresenting the basis of the summons. This amounts to a clear abuse of process.
(f) Strengthening with email evidence — continuing refusal to disclose and produce orders after 21 February 2025 reinforces abuse of process:
Exhibit B – Email Correspondence
03/02/2025: Applicant explicitly demanded disclosure of extradition papers and supporting documents. Gardaí ignored the demand.
12/06/2025 – 13/06/2025: Gardaí refused to identify counsel or produce any orders or warrants, stating that “Legal representation is a matter for yourself or the Courts” and “At this juncture there is no onus on An Garda Síochána to provide you with any of the requested documents.”
16/08/2025: Detective Inspector David Finnerty reiterated refusal to provide documentation, despite repeated legal demands. This shows a continuing, deliberate pattern of refusal that is itself a procedural abuse.
(g) The persistence of these refusals constitutes a continuing abuse of process, in violation of established Irish and international law, including DPP v Doyle [2017] IESC 1 and The State (O’Callaghan) v Ó Buachalla [1977] IR 42.
7.1 (a) The Applicant has been denied access to counsel since 26 August 2024 at 14:38 — the moment of notice of investigation/prosecution — contrary to Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Salduz v Turkey (2008) ECHR 36391/02.
(b) The Applicant has had no legal counsel since the second day of the 2007 trial.
(c) The applicant has NEVER had effective legal counsel as evidenced by the warrants and certificates themselves, all fatally flawed on multiple counts, so severely that no trained legal professional could reasonably fail to challenge them or see their invalidity.
(d) The WhatsApp correspondence above shows explicit refusals by Gardaí to appoint or facilitate counsel, including:
[28/08/2024 16:30] Peter Dunne: “Pursuant to schedule 1 article 6 appoint a solicitor for me.”
[28/08/2024 16:41] +353 85 878 1234: “Seek your own and appoint your own legal advisor.”
This denial was repeated despite formal requests citing statutory and constitutional rights.
(e) Strengthening with email evidence — continuing denial of effective counsel after 21 February 2025:
Exhibit B – Email Correspondence
03/02/2025: Applicant demanded disclosure and legal representation. No response confirming counsel appointment or provision.
12/06/2025 – 13/06/2025: Gardaí explicitly deny appointing counsel and refuse to provide any basis for their authority to proceed.
16/08/2025: Detective Inspector David Finnerty’s refusal to disclose orders and appoint counsel demonstrates ongoing denial of the Applicant’s rights to effective legal representation, as required by Article 6 ECHR and Irish constitutional law.
(f) This pattern of persistent refusal constitutes a continuing breach of the Applicant’s right to effective legal representation and amounts to a denial of justice.
(a) Reference
to Denial of Counsel
The
acts of Garda John Costello, Detective Inspector David Finnerty, and
Catherine Hogan in denying the Applicant access to counsel are
addressed in detail in Article 7 above. This denial is part of
a broader pattern of procedural misconduct that continues into the
present claims of contempt and perjury. From 2024 onward, the
Applicant repeatedly demanded disclosure of all warrants, orders,
certificates, and supporting legal authority, together with access to
counsel. These demands were explicitly refused. The Applicant also
informed Gardaí of a violation of speciality, which was
ignored, demonstrating a continuing disregard for procedural
fairness.
(b) Interference
Before the Court
Detective
Inspector David Finnerty and Catherine Hogan engaged in repeated
questioning of the Applicant by email between 11
June 2025 and 26 August 2025,
without informing him of the existence of Garda Costello’s
summons application filed in February 2025. At no point were
the Applicant’s rights explained, despite this clearly
constituting part of a criminal investigation. This conduct amounts
to improper interference with a defendant before the court,
undermining judicial independence, fair trial guarantees, and due
process. It compounds the procedural defects described in Article 6
(Abuse of Process) and is consistent with a continuing pattern of
misconduct established throughout 2024 and 2025.
Evidence includes:
Email dated 16/08/2025 from Detective Inspector Finnerty acknowledging receipt of the Applicant’s demands while continuing to question identity and status after proceedings had been initiated.
Email correspondence after 21 February 2025 showing an ongoing refusal to comply with disclosure obligations, despite explicit demands and ongoing litigation.
(c) Perjury
and Misrepresentation
Garda
John Costello knowingly misrepresented material facts to the court
and to the Applicant, thereby committing perjury and contempt of
court in breach of statutory duties under the Criminal Justice
(Perjury) Act 1996. This includes asserting legal obligations without
producing supporting court orders or statutory authority, and
knowingly using a false address while ignoring the Applicant’s
explicit statement that he had left Ireland and had no valid address
for service.
WhatsApp evidence includes:
[26/08/2024 13:59] “Change of circumstances. Left Kilfenora and not returning. Will be leaving Ireland shortly.”
[28/08/2024 16:43] “Cease communication… communication should be at your current Divisional Garda Station headquarters.”
Multiple subsequent messages confirming awareness of the Applicant’s absence and refusal to address service issues.
Email evidence includes:
Multiple refusals between 12 and 13 June 2025 by Detective Inspector Finnerty and Catherine Hogan to provide disclosure of orders, warrants, or legal authority, despite formal demands.
Continued silence and evasion in correspondence after 21 February 2025.
Questioning by email between 11 June 2025 and 26 August 2025 without informing the Applicant of his rights or the summons application, contrary to fair trial requirements.
These acts, taken together, constitute deliberate misrepresentation of fact and process to the court, rendering the proceedings void ab initio and constituting contempt of court.
(d) Violation
of Speciality
The
conduct of Garda Costello constitutes a direct breach of the
principle of speciality under the Extradition Act 1965 (as
amended) and the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Under
Minister for Justice v
Stafford [2009] IESC 83,
the actus reus of such a breach alone suffices. The Applicant
repeatedly demanded proof of extradition authority and specific
orders on which the proceedings were based. Garda Costello refused to
disclose such documents and pursued matters outside the scope of the
original extradition request without authority. This represents not
only procedural abuse (see Article 6) but a substantive
violation of the rule of speciality, rendering any alleged obligation
or prosecution ultra vires and void ab initio.
Evidence includes: repeated demands (03/02/2025, 12/06/2025, 16/08/2025) for disclosure of extradition papers and conviction certificates, with no lawful authority provided to justify continuing proceedings.
(e) Knowledge
of Invalid Service Address
Costello
was explicitly informed that the Applicant had left Ireland and had
no valid address for service. Despite this, he continued to file
applications, direct enforcement actions, and assert obligations.
This intentional disregard of due process constitutes abuse of
process and contempt of court.
Evidence includes WhatsApp messages cited above and ongoing refusal in email correspondence after 21 February 2025 to address or rectify the lack of lawful service.
(f) Continuing
Pattern of Misconduct
From
2024 onward, Garda Costello, Finnerty, and Hogan have engaged in a
continuous course of conduct comprising denial of counsel, refusal of
disclosure, interference before the court, perjury,
misrepresentation, violation of speciality, and contempt of court.
This pattern persisted despite formal demands by the Applicant,
including a criminal complaint filed on 14 June 2025, further
solidifying the contention that these proceedings are the product of
systemic procedural abuse.
(a) Material evidence has been
withheld since at least 2001, including but not limited to 2002,
2003, 2008, 2009, and 2021.
(b) Exculpatory trial transcripts
have been withheld since 2009.
(c) Interpol “Green Notice”
and related records have been withheld since 2003.
(d) The
Circuit Court order served was forged and illegally issued.
(e)
The original Circuit Court order and sentence warrant obtained via UK
police remain unserved by Ireland in law.
(f) These breaches
represent a continuing refusal to provide disclosure and are in
direct violation of the Applicant’s rights under Article 38.1
and Article 40.3 of the Constitution and the common‑law
duty of fair procedure.
(g) The conduct in 2024–2025 —
particularly the repeated refusals of Finnerty and Hogan to disclose
documentation after formal demands — confirms a continuing
pattern of deliberate withholding of evidence.
(a) The denial of legal counsel,
improper service, withholding of evidence, interference before the
court, and refusal to comply with formal demands constitute
fundamental violations of due process under the Constitution and the
extradition framework (State
(Healy) v Donoghue
[1976] IR 325; People
(DPP) v O’Neill
[2001] 2 IR 361).
(b) These violations have
persisted despite explicit formal complaints and legal demands by the
Applicant, including the complaint filed on 14 June 2025.
(c)
This continuing pattern demonstrates not merely isolated errors but
systemic breaches of the Applicant’s rights to fair procedure,
legal representation, and proper service. It undermines the integrity
of the judicial process and renders the summons and all subsequent
proceedings void ab initio.
Applicant is homeless, destitute, and at imminent risk of starvation.
Emergency matter requiring immediate video link hearing.
The Applicant further respectfully applies for exemption from payment of any filing or application fee in respect of this motion, pursuant to:
Section 22 of the District Court Act 1997, which permits the District Court to dispense with fees in the interests of justice;
The constitutional right of access to the courts under Article 40.3 of the Constitution of Ireland;
The inherent public interest nature of this application, addressing issues of constitutional law, human rights, abuse of process, and grave procedural injustice;
The Applicant’s state of destitution and homelessness, which renders payment of any fee wholly impracticable;
The principle that fee barriers should not obstruct constitutional claims or emergency matters affecting fundamental rights (see State (Healy) v Donoghue [1976] IR 325).
Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Court order that no fee be payable in relation to this motion or related proceedings.
13. PROVENANCE OF EVIDENCE
13.1 Statement of
Uncontested Status:
•
All documents listed herein have been formally lodged in the courts
specified, across both Ireland and the United Kingdom, and remain
uncontested with respect to their authenticity, issuance, or
source.
• Their acceptance by multiple courts,
including circuit, high, and appellate levels, establishes
presumptive authenticity and proper provenance.
•
Once lodged in any jurisdiction, no court in the other jurisdiction
has the authority to reinterpret, amend, or alter the document. Any
attempt to do so is ultra vires and legally void.
13.2 Irish Passport
•
Issued by: Passport Office – Department of Foreign Affairs,
Branch Office: 1st Floor, Crescent Quay, Wexford, Ireland.
•
Lodged: Court of Appeal (Ireland); Newcastle County Court, Family
Division (United Kingdom).
13.3 Birth Certificate
•
Issued by: General Register Office, Branch Office: Civil Registration
Service, Government Offices, Anne Street, Wexford, Ireland.
•
Lodged: Court of Appeal (Ireland); Newcastle County Court, Family
Division (United Kingdom).
13.4 UK Driving
Licence
•
Issued by: Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), Longview Road,
Morriston, Swansea SA6 7JL, United Kingdom.
• Lodged:
Court of Appeal (Ireland); Newcastle County Court, Family Division
(United Kingdom).
13.5 High Court DNA
Retention Orders (2001, 2001 & 2002)
•
Issued by: The High Court, Four Courts, Inns Quay, Dublin 7,
Ireland.
• Lodged: Kilkenny Circuit Court (Ireland);
Nenagh Circuit Court (Ireland); High Court Dublin (Ireland); Court of
Appeal (Ireland); Newcastle County Court, Family Division (United
Kingdom).
13.6 Garda Custody
Records
•
Originating Authority: Garda Síochána, Thomastown Garda
Station, Thomastown, Co. Kilkenny, Ireland.
•
Forwarded via: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions,
Infirmary Road, Dublin 7, Ireland.
• Lodged: Court of
Appeal (Ireland); Circuit Court (Ireland); District Court (Ireland);
Newcastle County Court, Family Division (United Kingdom).
13.7 2003 Warrant of
Ireland
•
Issued by: District Court, Parliament Street Courthouse, Kilkenny,
Ireland.
• Forwarded via: Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS), United Kingdom.
• Lodged: Nuneaton
Magistrates’ Court; Westminster Magistrates’ Court;
London High Court; Newcastle County Court, Family Division; High
Court Dublin; Kilkenny Circuit Court; Nenagh Circuit Court; Court of
Appeal (Ireland).
13.8 2003 Summary of
Evidence
•
Issued by: Nuneaton Magistrates’ Court, Vicarage Street,
Nuneaton CV11 4DR, United Kingdom.
• Lodged: Nuneaton
Magistrates’ Court; Westminster Magistrates’ Court;
London High Court; Newcastle County Court, Family Division; High
Court Dublin; Kilkenny Circuit Court; Nenagh Circuit Court; Court of
Appeal (Ireland).
13.9 2003 Warrant for
Imprisonment
•
Issued by: Nuneaton Magistrates’ Court, Vicarage Street,
Nuneaton CV11 4DR, United Kingdom.
• Lodged: Nuneaton
Magistrates’ Court; Westminster Magistrates’ Court;
London High Court; Newcastle County Court, Family Division; High
Court Dublin; Kilkenny Circuit Court; Nenagh Circuit Court; Court of
Appeal (Ireland).
13.10 2007 Conviction
Certificate
•
Issued by: Circuit Court, Courthouse, Parliament Street, Kilkenny,
Ireland.
• Lodged: Court of Appeal (Ireland, twice);
Newcastle County Court, Family Division (United Kingdom); Tyne and
Wear Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom).
•
Note: Tyne and Wear Magistrates’ Court illegally interpreted
this certificate as an endorsement (ultra vires).
13.11 2007 Conviction and
Sentence Certificate
•
Issued by: Circuit Court, Tipperary, Ireland.
•
Disclosed by: Northumberland Police, Office of the Chief Constable,
Middle Engine Lane Police Station, Wallsend, Tyne and Wear NE28 9NT,
United Kingdom (2021).
• Lodged: Court of Appeal
(Ireland); Newcastle County Court, Family Division (United Kingdom);
Tyne and Wear Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom).
•
Note: Tyne and Wear Magistrates’ Court illegally interpreted
this certificate as an endorsement (ultra vires).
13.12 2008 European
Arrest Warrant (EAW)
•
Issued by: High Court, Four Courts, Inns Quay, Dublin 7, Ireland.
•
Forwarded via: Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), United Kingdom.
•
Lodged: Westminster Magistrates’ Court; Newcastle County Court,
Family Division; London High Court; Court of Appeal (Ireland); High
Court Dublin.
13.13 2009 Conviction and
Sentence Certificate
•
Issued by: Circuit Court, Nenagh Courthouse, Banba Square, Nenagh,
Co. Tipperary, Ireland.
• Lodged: Newcastle County
Court, Family Division; Court of Appeal (Ireland, twice).
13.14 2009 Warrant for
Imprisonment
•
Issued by: Circuit Court, Tipperary, Ireland.
•
Disclosed by: Northumberland Police, Office of the Chief Constable,
Middle Engine Lane Police Station, Wallsend, Tyne and Wear NE28 9NT,
United Kingdom (2021).
• Lodged: Newcastle County
Court, Family Division; Court of Appeal (Ireland).
13.15 Witness
Statements
•
Ambrose Dunne: Lodged before Newcastle County Court, Family Division
& Irish Court of Appeal; also before Coventry County Court,
Family Division.
• Johanna Dunne: Lodged before
Newcastle County Court, Family Division & Irish Court of Appeal;
also before Coventry County Court, Family Division.
•
Peter Ivan Dunne, Victim Impact Statement: Lodged before Newcastle
County Court, Family Division & Irish Court of Appeal.
13.16 Covering Statement
on Exhibited Extracts
13.16.1
The documentary evidence submitted consists of extracts from reports
and assessments only.
13.16.2 Each extract includes:
(a)
the heading of the report, establishing origin and authority;
(b)
the name of the officer or author responsible; and
(c)
the passages evidencing violations.
13.16.3 The violations
demonstrated consist of:
(a) false factual
assertions, amounting to perjury and misleading the court;
(b)
redactions made contrary to explicit court order, amounting to
contempt of court; and
(c) contamination carried
forward from the 2003 extradition, tainting all subsequent
proceedings.
13.16.4 Some documents are presented in
clipped form as they were received clipped. In addition, minor
resizing may be visible due to document-processing software.
13.16.5
The Court is not asked to rule upon the substance of the reports
themselves but to consider that the identified contamination and
misconduct render all subsequent proceedings incapable of meeting the
standards of fair and just procedure, irrespective of any procedural
safeguards.
13.4.3 Immutability
of documents used in foreign courts
Once
lodged in any jurisdiction and used in a court proceeding, the
document becomes part of the factual matrix of that proceeding. Once
used in a foreign court proceeding, the domestic court loses
jurisdiction to amend or reinterpret it, as it is thereafter
incorporated into the factual matrix pursuant to the principles of
international law, including the doctrine of comity
of courts and res
judicata (see Hilton
v. Guyot [1895] 159 U.S.
113; M/S Breman v.
Superior Court of California,
407 U.S. 1 (1972)). This means explicitly that such a document, once
relied upon in any court proceeding — domestic or foreign —
forms part of the binding factual foundation (“factual matrix”)
of that case. Under established principles of public international
law and settled case law, once incorporated into a foreign court
proceeding, the domestic court has no jurisdiction to alter, amend,
or disregard it without express statutory or treaty authority. Any
attempt to do so is ultra vires, void, and of no legal effect. This
principle is beyond dispute in international law and is binding on
all domestic courts except where specifically and lawfully provided
otherwise.
14. LIST OF EXHIBITS
The documents as attached are:
Evidence
files
Identity documents removed for security reasons and identity theft prevention.
attachmentsA.pdf
containing:
1. REDACTED -> Birth Certificate
2. REDACTED -> Passport,
Passport Card
3. REDACTED -> UK Driving License
4. REDACTED -> Singapore Employment Pass 2016
5. Custody Records
6.
DNA Retention Order 21 Dec 2001, (2001 2750SS)
7. DNA
Retention Order 28 June 2002
8. DNA Retention Order 19 Dec
2002
9. 2003 Irish Warrant
10. UK Summary of
Evidence
11. 2003 Magistrates Warrant
attachmentsB.pdf
containing:
12. Charge Sheet
13. Statement of
Offence
14. 2007 Bench Warrant
15. 2008 EAW
attachmentsC.pdf
containing:
16. 2007 Certificate of Conviction (sourced
via English Police, unserved by Ireland)
17. 2007
Certificate of Conviction and Sentence (sourced via English police,
unserved by Ireland)
18. 2009 Certificate of Conviction
and Sentence (Illegally altered, Served)
attachmentsD.pdf
containing:
19. Solicitors Letter, 4 April 2007, T.
Lyons.
20. Solicitors Letter, 15 May 2007, T. Lyons.
21. REDACTED -> Witness Statement
22. Johanna Dunne, Witness Statement
23. Solicitor Letter 30/02/07, Gerald Meaney (DPP)
Additional Materials:
24.
m-buggy-solicitor.jpg
25.
Peter Ivan Dunne
Victim impact statement.pdf
26.
ongoing-risk.pdf (contains
evidence regarding Costello, Finnery and Hogan)
The Applicant respectfully requires the Court, in its legal duty and inherent jurisdiction, to issue the following Orders and Declarations:
That Case No. 2025/147632 and Case No. KK24/03 be dismissed in their entirety, on the grounds of defective identity, unlawful service, violation of speciality, and abuse of process.
That the Court declare all related proceedings to constitute a miscarriage of justice and a violation of the principle of speciality, in breach of the Extradition Act 1965 (as amended) and the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
That the Court declare that the Applicant is not the defendant in Case No. KK24/03 or in any other matter involving any of the following identities or variants:
Peter Dunne, Peter Ian Dunne, Peter Ivan Dunne, or any variant thereof,
with dates of birth 07/05/1961, 20/10/1964, or 24/10/1964,
or said to be born at Moyne Lower, Enniscorthy; Summerhill, Enniscorthy; or any other place.
It is further declared that:
(a)
There are at least seven individuals named “Peter Dunne”
born on 24 October 1964;
(b) The alleged individual “of
Moyne Lower, Enniscorthy” does not appear to exist at all;
(c)
The contamination of identity and records is so profound that it
vitiates all summonses, warrants, or convictions attached to ANY
AND ALL such identities.
That the Court declare the Applicant not subject to the Sex Offenders Act 2001 or to any restriction of liberty arising from any matter connected to the above identities or cases.
That the Court declare that no valid conviction or sentence exists capable of supporting any requirement under the Sex Offenders Act 2001, and that the purported founding orders are void and exculpatory.
That the Court declare that the founding conviction, sentence, and warrant orders relied upon are void ab initio, having been obtained in breach of the principle of speciality (Minister for Justice v Stafford [2009] IESC 83).
That the Court declare that it
has no jurisdiction
to proceed in any case arising out of the 2003 extradition (KK24/03)
due to:
(a) Violations of speciality;
(b) Defective
identity and address particulars;
(c) Lack of lawful service;
and
(d) Conflicting conviction and sentence certificates.
That the Court find that an estoppel in law now bars any further prosecution or action against the Applicant arising from these or related facts.
That the Court direct that this matter be heard immediately by video link, due to the Applicant’s destitution, lack of counsel, and humanitarian emergency.
That the Court refer the matter to the High Court for full vindication and restoration of the Applicant, noting the severe prejudice and loss suffered over twenty-two years of miscarriage of justice.
That the Court grant interim compensation of €15,000 pursuant to Section 22 of the District Court Act 1997, without prejudice to the Applicant’s right to full and complete vindication.
That the Court declare Garda John Costello, Detective Inspector David Finnerty, and Catherine Hogan in contempt of court and order criminal investigation for:
Perversion of justice;
Perjury;
Violation of speciality; and
Use of false instruments.
That the Court declare that the withholding of evidence and forgery of orders constitute further independent grounds for dismissal and for a declaration of miscarriage of justice.
That the Court exempt
the Applicant from any filing or application fee,
pursuant to:
(a) Section 22 of the District
Court Act 1997;
(b)
Article 40.3 of the Constitution (right of access to the courts);
(c)
The Applicant’s destitution and homelessness; and
(d) The
public interest and constitutional nature of the issues raised.
That the Court declare that no
decision made in this application
shall limit, prejudice, or extinguish the Applicant’s right to
pursue further proceedings in any higher court, having regard to:
(a)
The limited time available to prepare this application;
(b) The
absence of effective legal counsel; and
(c) The public interest
in full vindication of rights.
That the Court declare that the
application brought
by Garda John Costello
is void ab initio
and ultra vires,
and that no court in
Ireland has jurisdiction
to proceed with the matter, having regard to:
(a) Defects in
identity, address, and particulars of offence;
(b) Violation of
the principle of speciality under the Extradition
Act 1965 (as amended)
and the European Arrest
Warrant Act 2003;
(c)
Absence of lawful service of process (DPP
v O’Shea [1982] IR
384; State (O’Donnell)
v District Justice Williams
[1978] IR 1);
(d) Conflicting and inconsistent conviction and
sentence orders (State
(Harkin) v O’Neill
[1982] ILRM 149; R v
Bolton Magistrates, ex p Scallon
[1991] 2 QB 260); and
(e) Denial of effective legal counsel and
continuing violation of constitutional and human rights.
This declaration and the relief sought herein are pursued under:
Article 40.3 of the Constitution of Ireland;
The inherent jurisdiction of the Court to ensure legality;
The common law right to a fair hearing; and
The procedural protections of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Dated this 5th day of October 2025
Signed:
Peter Ivan
Dunne
Applicant
Due to lack of functioning printer, scanned signing paper is attached as authoritative signature as the only practical means of signing currently available to me.
