BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Breathnach v. Lindsay [2001] IESC 22 (22nd February, 2001)
Murray
J.
Hardiman
J.
Geoghegan
J.
137/1999
THE
SUPREME COURT
IN
THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST
A
REFUSAL OF THE HIGH COURT
(MR.
JUSTICE CARNEY) TO GRANT LEAVE
TO
APPLY FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI/
DECLARATION
BY WAY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
RELATING
TO STIOFÁN BREATHNACH
Applicant
and
HER
HONOUR JUDGE LINDSAY AND
GARDA
FINBARR NOEL BRADY, 143E
Respondents
Judgment
of Mr. Justice Geoghegan delivered 22nd day of February 2001 [nem. diss.]
In
another judgment, delivered today, I have criticised this appellant for
purporting to join the High Court judge whose order is being appealed against
as a respondent to the appeal. As the appellant well knows that is wholly
wrong practice. Accordingly, I would strike out that part of the title in
so far as Mr. Justice Carney has been purported to be joined as a respondent.
This
was originally an application for leave for judicial review and Her Honour
Judge Lindsay of the Circuit Court and Garda Finbarr Noel Brady were named as
respondents. The purpose of the application was to have an appeal to the
Circuit Court quashed. Carney J., in the High Court, made the following
ruling:
“In
so far as I am able to penetrate the inappropriate pseudo legal verbiage of
this application, it appears to relate to proceedings still pending before the
Circuit Court and due to come up again for mention on the 15th of June, 1999.
In these circumstances it would be premature for me to find an excess of
jurisdiction, an absence of jurisdiction or unconstitutionally unfair procedures.
This
application is premature and is refused.”
I
agree with Carney J. that it is not easy to determine what exactly the issue is
in this case, but as I understand it, the appellant was continually arguing in
the Circuit Court that the State was withholding documentary information which
if produced would establish that the offence was not a minor offence and that
it therefore should never have been tried in the District Court in the first
place. I do not think that the Circuit Court had any function in this
regard. The question of whether an offence is a minor offence or not is
determined at an earlier stage and certainly is never determined by the Circuit
Court on a District Court appeal.
I
also agree with the learned trial judge that, as the appeal had not yet been
heard or embarked upon by the Circuit Court, the question of certiorari did not
arise.
The
other grounds of appeal all relate to alleged misbehaviour on the part of
Carney J. and the registrar in the High Court. But although there are a
number of separate allegations, they all relate to the appellant’s basic
complaint that the prisoner applications ought, from the very beginning, be
heard in open court. I have already pointed out in another judgment,
delivered today, in which the same appellant is involved that the procedure
adopted for prisoner applications in the High Court has been endorsed by the
Supreme Court in an appeal brought by this same appellant, and in a written
judgment delivered by McGuinness J. The appellant is well aware of this.
I
would dismiss this appeal.
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2001/22.html
