O'Hara v Ireland and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore
• Judgment Date: 19 May 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] IEHC 268
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2021 6375 P]

Between

Richard O'Hara

Plaintiff

and

Ireland, The Attorney General, The Minister for Jusstice and Equality, Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company, Helen O'Hara

Defendants

[2023] IEHC 268

[2021 6375 P]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore delivered on the 19 ^th day of May, 2023

1 . In the last number of years, there has been a rash of cases instigated and prosecuted by persons representing themselves, in which it is claimed that the relevant plaintiff is protected from all court summonses and court orders by reference to provisions of the Constitution and of the Treaty of Europe.

2 . These proceedings are strikingly similar. As Simons J. observed in Fennell v. Collins [2019] IEHC 572, the nature of these cases suggests that there are unscrupulous people availing of the credulity of lay litigants and encouraging them to launch claims which, legally at least, make absolutely no sense. If anything, the number of such cases have multiplied since the judgment of Simons J. in Fennell. Other reserved judgments, coming to the conclusion that these sort of proceedings are frivolous and vexatious, bound to fail, and an abuse of process are:-

(a) My judgment in Mullins v. Ireland & Ors. [2022] IEHC 296.

(b) The judgment of Dignam J. in Towey and Towey v. Government of Ireland & Ors. [2022] IEHC 559.

(c) The judgment of Butler J. in Kearey v. Property Registration Authority [2022] IEHC 28.

(d) The judgment of Dignam J. in Mullaney v. Danske Bank & Ors. [2023] IEHC 62.

(e) The judgment of Roberts J. in Brennan v. Ireland & Ors. [2023] IEHC 107.

(f) My judgment, delivered today, in Lavery v. Humphreys.

3 . In Brennan, Roberts J. expressed concern:-

“that so much court and judicial time has been taken up dealing with what are essentially the same legal arguments advanced by parties over and over again, even though not a single case has been, or indeed could be, successful on these points” (Para. 29).

4 . I completely endorse this sentiment. Judges consistently refer to the pressures on the court system caused by the fact that a large amount of cases have to be processed by a relatively small amount of judges. However, the ill – effects of this pressure are felt not predominantly by judges, but rather by litigants. It is individuals and businesses who have to wait lengthy periods for their cases to get on and often significant periods for judgments to be delivered after the cases have been heard. If courts have to deal with a raft of cases such as these (described by Simons J. in Fennell as raising arguments that are “simply preposterous” and by Roberts J. in Brennan as “simply unstateable”) then the ability of the courts to deal in a timely manner with genuine legal disputes would be further hampered. To some extent, it is a matter for the conscience of the individual self – represented plaintiff as to whether or not they can justify bringing proceedings (such as the current claim) which simply make no sense, occupy a significant amount of court time, and run up costs and expenses both to the plaintiff and for those unfortunate enough to be sued by these individuals. It is a matter of some regret that the persons who are peddling this form of claim (to litigants who do not have the benefit of professional representation) have not yet themselves been made accountable for the pointless legal costs and expenses which their activities have generated.

The claim

5 . The plenary summons seeks damages for €2 million. The claim, in its entirety, reads as follows:-

“The plaintiff seeks a declaration from the Honourable Court that his constitutional rights have been denied and the plaintiff is aware of High Court constitutional case law no. 2018 / 9401 P where the Minister for Justice, Charlie Flanagan, and the Attorney General, Seamus Wolfe, failed to enter an appearance and that case was struck out. High Court case law no. 2018 / 9401 P along with Article 40.1 means that like the Justice Minister and the Attorney General, the plaintiff is immune to court summons and the case in court against the plaintiff should have been struck out.

The plaintiff is aware that there is an investigation by the Justice Department under three reference numbers: DJE / MO / 00516 / 2019, DJE / MO/ 04404 / 2019 and DJE / MO / 00889 / 2019, also PULSE number HQCSO.I/348140 / 16 from the Garda Commissioner in relation to this Constitutional Crisis.

The plaintiff is aware of how the DPP failed to comply with High Court order no. 2006 / 1114 P and as the DPP the plaintiff is immune to court orders 165 / 2018 Circuit Court Kilkenny FL 00020 / 2016 Family Law Court Kilkenny.

The plaintiff is aware that the State has failed, since September 2019, to provide a defence in related constitutional case no. 2019 / 6501 P.

The plaintiff is aware that the State has failed to enter an appearance in related constitutional cases no. 2018 / 9401 P and no. 2021 / 2308 P which s due before the High Court on November 1 ^st, 2021.

The plaintiff is protected from all court summons and all court orders under Article 40.1 of the Constitution, also under Article 2 of the Treaty of Europe”.

6 . The statement of claim, having described the plaintiff as a farmer residing in Kilkenny, reads:-

“The plaintiff's indorsement of claim makes it very clear that the plaintiff, like the DPP, is immune to court orders and like Seamus Woulfe and Charlie Flanagan, is immune to court summons.

The defendants are aware that there is NO defence possible as the plaintiff's constitutional rights are UNTOUCHABLE which is confirmed in the Supreme Court ruling Denis O'Brien v. Oireachtas Member.

The plaintiff is aware that since September 2019, the Chief State Solicitor has FAILED to provide a defence in the related High Court constitutional case no. 2019 / 6501 P which exposes the fact...