Flanagan v Honourable Ms Justice Ring

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 18 March 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 155
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 130 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 18 March 2016

[2016] IEHC 155

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2016 No. 130 J.R.]

BETWEEN

DENIS FLANAGAN

APPLICANT

AND

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE MARY ELLEN RING, THE GARDA SÍOCHÁNA OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION

AND

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

Practice & Procedures – Judicial review – Appropriate forum – Extension of time – Arguability – Ipse dixit

Facts: The applicant sought leave by way of judicial review to challenge the decision of the second named respondent declaring the complaint of the applicant containing allegations of perjury against the concerned Gardai as inadmissible.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys refused to grant leave by way of judicial review to the applicant. The Court held that the issue in relation to which the alleged complaint was filed had already been determined by the Court of Law and the concerned Gardai had no power to deal with such allegations based on his own ipse dixit. The Court observed that the present application being time barred lacked sufficient grounds for an extension of time.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 18th day of March, 2016

1 For the past twenty-five years, the applicant has been engaged in the preparation, conduct and aftermath of litigation (including satellite litigation, of which the present application for leave to seek judicial review is the latest instance) arising from a traffic accident on 10th May, 1991 involving a Dublin Bus vehicle.

2 It appears that he brought a Circuit Court action in negligence in or about 24th February, 1994. He says, although the papers are somewhat unclear on this, that the Circuit Court transferred the action to the High Court in 2008.

3 The following year, Peart J. dismissed the action ( Flanagan v. Dublin Bus [2009] IEHC 98 (5th March, 2009)). The applicant says he appealed to the Supreme Court but this was struck out ‘ more than 1 year ago’ although precisely when or why was not clarified. He objects that the Supreme Court refused to accept an affidavit in 2013. Apparently his solicitors applied to come off record and were permitted to do so on 15th February, 2013. His affidavit of 29th February, 2016 includes scandalous matter in relation to that court's dismissal of his appeal (and in relation to much else).

4 The applicant says that on or about 5th May, 2015 he called in person to the Bridewell Gardai Station in Dublin and reported an allegation of perjury which he claimed occurred in the course of his main High Court action. He says that Gardaí refused to have his complaint investigated on the ground that it was a civil matter.

5 On 11th May, 2015 he submitted a complaint to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC), of which the first named respondent is the chairperson, about what he said was the refusal of the Gardai to investigate his allegation.

6 The commission replied by letter dated 5th June, 2015 declaring his complaint to be inadmissible. This letter is the main subject of his present application for leave to seek judicial review.

7 Separate from these matters, he appears to have had a number of legal proceedings involving three sets of solicitors that acted for him in the personal injury matter, and informed me that he was most recently before Barrett J. on 8th February, 2016 in relation to one of these matters.

Relief sought

8 In the statement grounding the application for judicial...