Connell v Governor of Dóchas Centre
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Garrett Simons |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IEHC 341 |
| Date | 27 July 2020 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | 2020 No. 173 J.R. |
[2020] IEHC 341
Garrett Simons J.
2020 No. 173 J.R.
2020 No. 174 J.R.
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Extension of time – Judicial review – Temporary release from prison – Applicants seeking an extension of time within which to issue and serve the originating notice of motion in two sets of judicial review proceedings – Whether the balance of justice lay against granting a further extension of time
Facts: The applicants, Ms and Mr Connell, applied for temporary release from prison to allow them to attend their mother’s funeral on 29 February 2020. Judicial review proceedings sought to challenge the decisions, of the respective prison authorities, the first, second and third respondents, the Governor of Dóchas Centre, the Governor of the Midlands Prison and the Irish Prison Service, to refuse to entertain that application for temporary release on compassionate grounds. The prison authorities took the view that an application should instead have been made to court for bail. The applicants’ case, as pleaded, was that this approach was erroneous in that there is a statutory power vested in the fourth respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, to absent a prisoner from prison on compassionate grounds provided for under s. 39 of the Prisons Act 2007. The applicants applied to the High Court for an extension of time within which to issue and serve the originating notice of motion in two sets of judicial review proceedings. This was, in fact, the second occasion upon which an extension of time had been sought in the proceedings.
Held by Simons J that, on the facts of the case, the balance of justice lay against granting a further extension of time, for the following reasons: first, judicial review proceedings should be progressed with expedition; secondly, the applicants had already had the benefit of an extension of time; thirdly, the balance between (i) ensuring compliance with the Rules of the Superior Courts and discipline in legal proceedings, and (ii) the substantive rights of the parties, also favoured the refusal of the application for a further extension of time; finally, the fact that the respondents had indicated their consent to the granting of a further extension of time, should the High Court deem it appropriate, was not determinative of the application.
Simons J held that the application for the second extension of time within which to issue and serve the originating notice of motion in these two sets of judicial review proceedings would be refused and that the judicial review proceedings would be dismissed.
Application refused.
This judgment sets out my ruling on an application for an extension of time within which to issue and serve the originating notice of motion in two sets of judicial review proceedings. As explained presently, this is, in fact, the second occasion upon which an extension of time has been sought in the proceedings.
The Applicants, who are brother and sister, had applied for temporary release from prison to allow them to attend their mother's funeral on 29 February 2020. The judicial review proceedings seek to challenge the decisions, of the respective prison authorities, to refuse to entertain this application for temporary release on compassionate grounds. It appears that the prison authorities took the view that an application should instead have been made to court for bail. The Applicants' case, as pleaded, is that this approach was erroneous in that there is a statutory power vested in the Minister for Justice and Equality to absent a prisoner from prison on compassionate grounds provided for under section 39 of the Prisons Act 2007.
Leave to apply for judicial review had been granted by the High Court (Gearty J.) on 28 February 2020. Such applications are normally made ex parte. However, in the present proceedings, the respondents were, very sensibly, put on notice of the leave application. This resulted in an accommodation being reached whereby the Applicants would be released on temporary bail so as to allow them to attend the funeral. The Applicants were also granted leave to apply for judicial review, and were directed to serve an originating notice of motion returnable for 20 March 2020.
This notice of motion should have been issued out of the Central Office and served on the respondents within seven days after perfection of the order granting leave. See Order 84, rule 22(3) as follows.
(3) A notice of motion or summons, as the case may be, must be served within seven days after perfection of the order granting leave, or within such other period as the Court may direct. In default of service within the said time any stay of proceedings granted in accordance with rule 20(8) shall lapse. In the case of a motion on notice it shall be returnable for the first available motion day after the expiry of seven weeks from the grant of leave, unless the Court otherwise directs.
The order granting leave had been perfected on 28 February 2020, and, accordingly, the notice of motion should have been issued and served by Friday, 7 March 2020.
In the event, however, this time-limit was not observed. Thereafter, on 8 June 2020, an application was made ex parte to the High Court (Meenan J.) for an extension of time within which to issue and serve the originating notice of motion. Time was extended for a period of fourteen days from the date of perfection of the order. The order was drawn up the next day. 9 June 2020. Accordingly, the motion should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial