L.A. (A Minor) v The Director of the Garda Juvenile Diversion Program and DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Mark Heslin |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IEHC 259 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | 2021/901 JR |
[2022] IEHC 259
2021/901 JR
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review – Failure to give reasons – Rights to fair procedures – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether the applicant’s rights to fair procedures had been breached
Facts: The first respondent, the Director of the Garda Juvenile Diversion Programme (the Director), refused to admit the applicant to the Programme. By order made on 8 November 2021, the applicant was granted leave to apply by way of an application for judicial review as per the applicant’s statement of grounds. The reliefs listed at paragraph D thereof were as follows: “1. An order of certiorari by way of application for judicial review quashing the decision of the First Named Respondent to refuse to admit the Applicant to the Garda Youth Diversion Programme. 2. An order remitting the assessment of the Applicant’s suitability for admission to the Garda Youth Diversion Programme to the First Named Respondent for fresh consideration. 3. An injunction restraining the prosecution of the Applicant in summary proceedings entitled DPP (Garda Kevin Barry) v LA [Charge Sheet number and Case number given]. 4. An order pursuant to Order 84 Rule 20(8) of the Rules of the Superior Courts that the grant of leave act as a stay on proceedings entitled DPP (Garda Kevin Barry) v LA [Charge Sheet number and Case number given]. 5. Such further or other order as to this Honourable Court shall deem appropriate. 6. The costs arising from and incidental to these proceedings.” The legal grounds relied on by the applicant were pleaded from para 19 onwards of the applicant’s statement of grounds as follows: “19. The Applicant’s rights to fair procedures under both the Constitution and the European Convention on human rights have been breached insofar as the First Named Respondent has failed to provide the Applicant with any and/or any adequate reasons for the decision to refuse the Applicant’s admittance to the programme. 20. The Applicant’s rights to fair procedures under both the Constitution and the European Convention on human rights have been breached insofar as the Second Named Respondent has sought to proceed with the prosecution on foot of [charge sheet number] notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant has not been provided with any and/or any adequate reasons for the decision to refuse the Applicant’s admittance to the programme. 21. Interim relief in the form of a stay on the prosecution of [charge sheet number] is sought on the ground that failure to stay the prosecution until the determination of these proceedings will render the outcome of these proceedings moot and nugatory in circumstances where the case is next listed before the children court on [X November 2021].”
Held by the High Court that the applicant’s rights to fair procedures had not been breached. The Court noted that at para. 54 of the applicant’s written submissions it was contended that “the refusal to admit the Applicant to the programme ought to be quashed as the decision-making process was procedurally unfair, lacked transparency, and was not reasonably or soundly based”. The Court held that even if the entire of the foregoing submission spoke to the case, as pleaded, the applicant had not established the foregoing. The Court held that reasons had been given and the Director’s reasons were adequate insofar as his obligations. The Court held that a discursive explanation was not required by constitutional or natural justice, or pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that the applicant’s case fell to be dismissed.
The Court’s preliminary view was that there were no facts or circumstances which would justify a departure from the ‘normal rule’ that costs should ‘follow the event’.
Application refused.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Mark Heslin delivered on the 31st day of March, 2022.
This case concerns an alleged failure to give reasons for a refusal by the First Named Respondent (“the Director”) to admit the Applicant to the Juvenile Diversion Programme (“the Programme”).
By order made on 8 November 2021 (Barr J.), the Applicant was granted leave to apply by way of an application for judicial review as per the Applicant's Statement of Grounds. The Reliefs listed at paragraph D thereof are as follows:
-
“1. An order of certiorari by way of application for judicial review quashing the decision of the First Named Respondent to refuse to admit the Applicant to the Garda Youth Diversion Programme.
-
2. An order remitting the assessment of the Applicant's suitability for admission to the Garda Youth Diversion Programme to the First Named Respondent for fresh consideration.
-
3. An injunction restraining the prosecution of the Applicant in summary proceedings entitled DPP (Garda Kevin Barry) v LA [Charge Sheet number and Case number given].
-
4. An order pursuant to Order 84 Rule 20(8 of the Rules of the Superior Courts that the grant of leave act as a stay on proceedings entitled DPP (Garda Kevin Barry) v LA [Charge Sheet number and Case number given].
-
5. Such further or other order as to this Honourable Court shall deem appropriate.
-
6. The costs arising from and incidental to these proceedings.”
With regard to the grounds upon which the relief is sought, paras. E, 1 to 18, inclusive, of the Applicant's Statement of Grounds comprise a setting out certain facts which do not appear to be in dispute. Later in this judgement I will set out, in chronological order, relevant facts which emerge from a careful analysis of the pleadings affidavits and exhibits which were put before the court. Insofar as the legal grounds relied on by the Applicant, these are pleaded from para 19 onwards as follows:
“ Grounds
19. The Applicant's rights to fair procedures under both the Constitution and the European Convention on human rights have been breached insofar as the First Named Respondent has failed to provide the Applicant with any and/or any adequate reasons for the decision to refuse the Applicant's admittance to the programme.
20. The Applicant's rights to fair procedures under both the Constitution and the European Convention on human rights have been breached insofar as the Second Named Respondent has sought to proceed with the prosecution on foot of [charge sheet number] notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant has not been provided with any and/or any adequate reasons for the decision to refuse the Applicant's admittance to the programme.
21. Interim relief in the form of a stay on the prosecution of [charge sheet number] is sought on the ground that failure to stay the prosecution until the determination of these proceedings will render the outcome of these proceedings moot and nugatory in circumstances where the case is next listed before the children court on [X November 2021].”
It is clear from the foregoing that the Applicant has not pleaded that the decision challenged was unreasonable or irrational in the sense in which those terms are employed in judicial review proceedings. In short, this is what might be called a ‘reasons’ case and it is only the foregoing issue which constitutes the pleaded case.
The Applicant will attain her majority in May of this year and, that being so, the court was asked to expedite the delivery of this judgement, which it has done.
Before proceeding further, I want to express my thanks to Mr Dwyer SC, for the Applicant, and to Mr Guerin SC, for the First Named Respondent, both of whom made oral submissions with great clarity and skill, supplementing detailed written submissions which were of great assistance to the court. Although I have carefully considered the entirety of the submissions, written and oral, as well as all the authorities to which this court's attention was directed, I will refer in this judgement to the principal submissions made, and to certain of the authorities which featured most in the various submissions.
At the outset of the hearing, it was made clear by Counsel for the Applicant that no relief is sought as against the Second Named Respondent (“the DPP”) other than to adjourn the district court prosecution, pending the determination of the judicial review proceedings. Mr Kelly BL, for the DPP, indicated that, in circumstances where the Director had made a decision to refuse admission to the Programme, the Applicant now stands prosecuted before the Children Court. Both the Applicant and the DPP were in agreement that the charge against the Applicant was at the suit of the DPP in exercise of her independent functions and that it was not necessary for any further participation by the DPP at the hearing. In short, there was no further role for the DPP unless the outcome of the judicial review proceedings was for the Director's decision to be quashed and the matter remitted for further consideration. In light of the foregoing, the case proceeded as between the Applicant and the First Named Respondent Director, without further participation by the DPP at the hearing.
Before looking at the facts in the present case, it is appropriate to look in some detail at the Programme. Although previously on a non-statutory footing, the Programme is now provided for in Part 4 of the Children Act, 2001 (“the 2001 Act”).
Section 18 of the 2001 Act states the following:
“ Principle.
18. Unless the interests of society otherwise require and subject to this Part, any child who —
(a) has committed an offence, or
(b) has behaved anti-socially,
and who accepts responsibility for his or her criminal or anti-social behaviour shall be considered for admission to a diversion programme (in this Part referred to as the Programme)...
To continue reading
Request your trial