High Court dismisses election petition applicant's ex parte inspection request due to lack of standing and res judicata.

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 369

Record No. 2025 120 IA

IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 1992 (AS AMENDED) AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR INSPECTION OF THE BALLOT POLLING INFORMATION CARDS BETWEEN MICHELLE KEANE INTENDED APPLICANT AND THE CLERK OF THE DÁIL, THE IRISH GOVERNMENT INTENDED RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Bolger delivered on the 27th day of June 2025

1. The intended applicant’s ex parte application was heard on 19 June 2025, at which time I gave my decision to refuse the application. The within judgment sets out my reasons for that

decision.

The intended applicant’s application

2. The intended applicant sought relief on an ex parte basis pursuant to s. 130 of the Electoral Act 1992, as amended (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) permitting her access to inspect polling documentation retained by the first named intended respondent pursuant to s. 129 of the Act. She also sought an order for the retention of certain polling documentation until the completion of a current garda investigation into complaints made by her and completion of what she refers to (at para. 6 of her Ex Parte Docket) as “legal proceedings including appeals in the Court of Appeal”, which are not identified. The Ex Parte Docket also sought an order extending the statutory sixmonth period for the retention and inspection of such polling documents as provided for under s. 130(4) of the Act on the basis of exceptional circumstances. That section does not allow for any such extension, although s. 129(3) does allow this Court to direct the first named intended respondent not to exercise their statutory duty to cause the documents to be destroyed.

3. The intended applicant says in her Ex Parte Docket that evidence of potential election irregularities has “recently” come to light, including evidence that thousands of electors have reported voting for her but whose votes are not reflected in the official results. In her affidavit grounding the within application, the intended applicant avers to having received 1,530 first preference votes in the general election of 29 November 2024 in which she was an independent candidate. She avers to having been contacted by thousands of people from County Kerry who told her that they voted for her. She exhibits a number of emails from people who say that they voted for her, some of whom say they gave her their number one preference, at least one identified a number two preference, and others do not identify the nature of the vote they say they gave her. The emails also refer to other people (some of whom are named, and others are not) whom the authors of the emails claim also voted for the intended applicant. The total number of votes referred to in the emails only reaches double digits and falls vastly short of the 1,530 votes that the official result confirms were cast for the intended applicant. The intended applicant has not adduced any proof of thousands of people having voted for her.

4. The intended applicant also avers to having become aware of “credible evidence” that the marked register of electors used during the election contains the names of deceased individuals who are marked as having voted. Nothing is exhibited to corroborate this allegation, and the intended applicant does not identify the evidence she claims to have.

The intended applicant’s locus standi

5. Section 130(3) of the Act requires, in accordance with s. 130(1), that the inspection or production is required for the purpose of “instituting or maintaining a prosecution for an offence under this Act or for the purpose of a petition”. The intended applicant does not have locus standi to seek inspection or production of documentation in relation to a prosecution as that is a matter for An Garda Síochána. There could potentially be locus standi where inspection or production is required for the purpose of a petition. There is no petition in being here.

The intended applicant’s other related proceedings

6. The intended applicant previously made an application for leave to present an election petition pursuant to s. 132 of the Act which was refused by Simons J. in a decision of 11 March 2025 Keane v. Clerk of the Dáil and ors [2025] IEHC 137 because the time prescribed had expired and could not be extended by the Court. Simons J. also refused a request for disclosure of documents pursuant to s. 130 of the Act which, he said, could not be pursued in an application for leave and could not be pursued “on a freestanding basis in the context of a defunct application” (at para. 21).

7. It is concerning that the intended applicant made the within application in disregard of the orders previously made by Simons J. and without any mention by the intended applicant to having made that application previously. The intended applicant did refer in her oral submissions to having made a separate application to Egan J. for production of polling documentation pursuant to the same Act and arising from the same election. There was no satisfactory explanation for why she considered it necessary to make a further application to this Court for production of what seems to be related, if not similar, documentation. Such an approach to litigation is inappropriate and in breach of the principle of res judicata.

8. The intended applicant has also breached her obligation of uberrimae fidei in making an ex parte application without advising the Court of the full relevant facts of the case. The intended applicant’s status as a litigant in person does not confer her with immunity from responsibility to inform herself about court procedures and to conduct her litigation in a way that does not needlessly waste court time.

Decision

9. The intended applicant has no standing to seek, and this Court has no jurisdiction to grant, the reliefs sought. This is because there is no petition in being, the intended applicant’s application for leave to bring a petition having previously been sought and refused.

10. I refuse the application in its entirety.

11. For the avoidance of doubt, I am refusing the applicant leave to issue or serve the Notice of Motion that she furnished to the Court along with her Ex Parte Docket. The orders sought in the Notice of Motion replicate those in the Ex Parte Docket, which I have refused.