Supreme Court dismisses appeal striking out improper respondent title and limited High Court leave.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court struck out the Appellant's attempt to join two High Court Judges as respondents and dismissed the appeal. The Appellant sought judicial review regarding unequal prison facilities for unrepresented versus represented prisoners, but the High Court had already limited relief to a mandamus order. The Court held that the High Court correctly restricted the scope of leave to the arguable discrimination issue, rejecting the Appellant's claim that such limitation was improper.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedNotice of Appeal Act 1990; Supreme Court Rules: The Court has the power to strike out improper respondent titles and may dismiss appeals where the High Court lawfully limited the scope of judicial review leave to arguable issues.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedFull text
THE SUPREME COURT
1999 No. 234
Murray, J.
Hardiman, J.
Geoghegan J.
IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS
BETWEEN
STIOFAN BREATHNACH
APPLICANT
AND
GOVERNMENT LEGISLATURE, MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND MANAGER OF WHEATFIELD, PLACE OF DETENTION
RESPONDENTS
Record No. 1998 No. 369JR
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Geoghegan delivered 22nd day of February 2001
It must be commented upon yet again that the Appellant has wrongly and unlawfully purported to join two High Court Judges as
Respondents to this appeal. If after today’s judgments he attempts to do this on future occasions he is in jeopardy of the Notice of
Appeal being struck our by this Court. I would in this case strike out that part of the title to the proceedings.
The basic complaint in this judicial review proceeding was that a person who was not legally represented such as the Appellant, was
not given the same facilities in prison for preparing legal cases such as his District Court appeals as a legally represented prisoner
would have. On foot of this complaint the Appellant has sought leave to apply for an Order of Certiorari quashing District Court
convictions and appeal proceedings pending before the Circuit Court together with an appropriate declaratory order dealing with his
complaints. The High Court (Carney J.) gave him limited leave. The ruling of Carney J. read as follows:
“The Applicant may have leave to seek judicial review by way of mandamus requiring the Governor of Wheatfield Prison to
show cause as to why the Applicant should not be afforded the same facilities for preparing his District Court appeals as a
prisoner who is legally represented.”
The Appellant seems to be under the impression that the High Court is not entitled in granting leave to limit the leave granted or alter
the type of relief being sought. This is entirely incorrect. There would have been no justification for giving leave for certiorari. But if
the High Court considered that an arguable case had been made out of an unlawful discrimination as between legally represented
prisoners and prisoners not legally represented in relation to the preparation of their cases then it was correct for the High Court to
give leave addressing that issue only. I express no view as to whether the particular relief granted by Carney J. was the appropriate
one for this purpose as it does not arise in this appeal. This appeal is confined to the issue which I have mentioned, that is to say,
the alteration of the reliefs by Carney J. and to the Appellant’s usual complaints about the procedure adopted in prisoner applications
in the High Court. This last matter has already been dealt with by this Court in a judgment of McGuinness J. None of the other
matters referred to in the Notice of Appeal would appear to be relevant to the judicial review sought.
I would dismiss the appeal.