Alan Lenaghan v Judge Flann Brennan and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Kearns P.
• Judgment Date: 06 March 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 143
• Court: High Court
• Date: 06 March 2015

[2015] IEHC 143

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 520 JR/2013]

Alan Lenaghan v Judge Flann Brennan & Ors.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

ALAN LENAGHAN

APPLICANT

AND

JUDGE FLANN BRENNAN

RESPONDENT

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

NOTICE PARTIES

Judicial Interpretation – District Court Rules – Search Warrant – Information Request – Practice and Procedures – Precedent – Proceedings – Justice – Fair Procedures

Facts: This case was concerned with an application which focused on the interpretation of Order 35, rule 3 of the District Court Rules. On the 21st April, 2012 Detective Sergeant Joe Higgins applied to the respondent for a search warrant in respect of the applicant”s dwelling house pursuant to s 10(1) of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997, as amended by s 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. That section permitted the District Judge to issue a search warrant where he or she was satisfied by information on oath from a member not below the rank of sergeant that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of or relating to the commission of an arrestable offence was to be found in any place, for the search of that place and any persons found at that place. The respondent granted the search warrant and the applicant”s home was searched on the 23rd April, 2012. The applicant was not present himself in the house and no prosecution took place in the aftermath of the search. Having failed to obtain a copy of the warrant and the sworn information grounding the warrant from the notice parties, the applicant finally obtained a copy of the warrant from the District Court Clerk in Dundalk. The District Court Clerk refused however to furnish a copy of the information and quoted s 65 of the Court Officers Act 1926 explaining that any application for access to court records must be made directly to the court where the case was heard. On the 23rd May, 2013 the applicant applied through his solicitors to the respondent, on notice to the District Court Clerk, the Superintendent at Dundalk Garda Station, and the State Claims Agency, for access to a copy of the information. This application was refused by the respondent who took the view that there was ‘no precedent’ for such an application and no provision in the District Court Rules for such an application. He concluded that he had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs as sought. Thereafter, the applicant initiated these judicial review proceedings seeking, inter alia, an order of certiorari quashing the refusal of the respondent to deliver to the solicitors for the applicant a copy of the information or, in the alternative, an order of mandamus directing the respondent to order a delivery to the applicant”s solicitors of the copy information. Accordingly, the Court was faced with the question, whether the District Court Judge correctly interpreted O.35 of the District Court Rules when holding he had no jurisdiction to make the order sought. On behalf of the applicant it was submitted that the terms of the District Court rule straightforwardly permit the respondent to order that a copy of the information be delivered to the applicant.

Held by Justice Kearns in light of the available evidence and submissions presented that the learned District Judge correctly construed his jurisdiction when refusing to make the order sought. It was determined that any other interpretation of the relevant rule under O.35 of the District Court Rules would have the effect that a freestanding application could be brought before the District Court for the production for any document in any proceedings whatsoever or where so ever contemplated by an applicant. Moreover, the Court was satisfied that, properly interpreted, the rule must be taken as meaning that a copy of any order or other document could only be directed to be furnished from one set of proceedings in the District Court for the purpose of legal proceedings in other District Court proceedings, whether actual or intended. There were no such proceedings in being or stated to be intended in the instant case. Thus, in reasoning that the application made to the District Judge for the issuing of a warrant fell outside the definition of ‘case’ or ‘proceedings’ as contemplated by the District Court Rules, it was concluded that the learned District Court Judge correctly interpreted his jurisdiction under O.35, r.

1 JUDGMENT of Kearns P. delivered on the 6th day of March, 2015

2 This is an application which focuses on the interpretation of Order 35, rule 3 of the District Court Rules which provides:-

"Where a Judge is satisfied that a copy of an order or other document is reasonably required by any person for the purpose of any legal proceedings, such Judge may direct the Clerk to furnish a copy of such order or other document to such person upon payment by such person of the prescribed fee (if any)."

FACTS

3 On the 21 ^st April, 2012 Detective Sergeant Joe Higgins applied to the respondent for a search warrant in respect of the applicant's dwelling house pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Criminal Justice ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997, as amended by s.6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. That section permits the District Judge to issue a search warrant where he or she is satisfied by information on oath from a member not below the rank of sergeant that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of or relating to the commission of an arrestable offence is to be found in any place, for the search of that place and any persons found at that place.

4 Section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 provides that an application under any enactment to a court, or a judge of a court, for a search warrant shall be heard otherwise than in public.

5 The respondent granted the search warrant and the applicant's home was searched on the 23 ^rd April, 2012. The applicant was not present himself in the house at the time, but his partner and young son were present. No prosecution took place in the aftermath of the search.

6 The applicant subsequently sought a copy of the warrant and the sworn information grounding the warrant from the notice parties by way of correspondence beginning on the 23 ^rd April, 2012. The applicant's solicitor simultaneously sought a copy of the warrant and information from the District Court Clerk. The Clerk refused same and suggested that the application be made directly to the court where the case was heard. On the 17 August, 2012 Detective Superintendent Thomas Maguire confirmed that neither copies of the warrant nor the information would be furnished to the applicant "in the absence of a court order" and requested that any further correspondence be directed to the head of legal affairs of An Garda Síochána.

7 The applicant redirected his attempts to obtain a copy of the warrant and information to the head of legal affairs of An Garda Síochána, who apparently referred the matter to the State Claims Agency. The State Claims Agency agreed to provide a copy of the warrant in September 2012 and actually provided same in April 2013. The applicant's submissions also indicate that he obtained a copy of the warrant ultimately from the District Court Clerk in Dundalk. The District Court Clerk refused however to furnish a copy of the information and quoted s.65 of the Court Officers Act 1926 explaining that any application for access to court records must be made directly to...