A.R v DPP
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Ms. Justice Máire |
Judgment Date | 26 July 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] IECA 415 |
Date | 26 July 2020 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
Docket Number | Appeal No. 173/2018] Appeal No. 121/2018] [High Court No. 2018/206 J.R.] |
AND
[2018] IECA 415
Whelan J.
McGovern J.
Baker J.
Appeal No. 173/2018]
[High Court No. 2014/55 J.R.]
Appeal No. 121/2018]
[High Court No. 2018/206 J.R.]
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Childcare proceedings – Dismissal of charges – Injunctive relief – Appellant seeking to appeal from orders made ex parte in the High Court – Whether sufficient grounds had been identified
Facts: The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal from orders made ex parte in the High Court on the 12th March 2018 and orders made on the 8th March 2018. Both of the applications touched on and concerned childcare proceedings. The second application sought that the respondents, the Director of Public Prosecutions, two named judges and 13 Gardaí be the subject of orders as follows: (i) an order for immediate dismissal of five outstanding erroneous charges created by them; (ii) orders for immediate injunctions against the respondent government departments, an Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions; (iii) orders for immediate injunctions against the District Court judiciary; (iv) orders for immediate imprisonment of the named respondents, being 16 separate named respondents in light of their alleged continuing prosecution in breach of the High Court order; (iv) orders for full disclosure of all evidence in the respondent’s files, to include copy of all unedited video recordings taken of the applicant by Gardaí within Cork District Court, the Bridewell Garda Station, Cork Circuit, on the 6th November 2013 and an order to continue the above remedies until determination of judicial review appeal in order to “ensure the safety and freedom of the applicant and the applicant’s three daughters.
Held by the Court that no sufficient grounds had been identified in relation to the application seeking to reverse the first decision. The Court was satisfied that no basis had been advanced and no grounds on which this court could grant leave, particularly in circumstances where the order made by the circuit judge in question in the first instance refusing the DARS, the various DARS, and refusing to make available the entire file of the District Court was never appealed against and in the absence of that preliminary fundamental step being taken there was never any basis for judicial review and, notwithstanding that the threshold is very low indeed, that low threshold had not been met in this case. The Court held that the language in the second order was very clear and it fundamentally undermined the contentions advanced. In the Court’s view there was no lawful basis whatsoever disclosed and no stateable ground on which the orders that were being sought could be made.
The Court held that both applications would be refused.
Applications refused.
Both of the applications touch on and concern the childcare proceedings.
The appellant is a litigant in person and this is her appeal from the orders made ex parte by Meenan J. in the High Court on the 12th March 2018 and also pertaining to orders made by Noonan J. on the 8th March 2018. At the outset an issue was raised and Ms. R. brought to my attention that some letters signed by me in my capacity as Attorney General had been received by her in the past. She confirmed however that she had no objection to me hearing and sitting as a member of this panel of judges determining this case.
In the first instance, the application in relation to the orders made by Meenan J., an application was made seeking leave to apply by way of an application for judicial review for reliefs which were set forth in Ms. R.'s statement of grounds dated the 20th March 2018 based on grounds set out in that statement and verified by her affidavit sworn on the 12th March 2018. The ex parte order made by Meenan J. was perfected on the 16th March. The appellant is the mother of three girls, now aged 18, 16 and 14.
The background is that there had been childcare proceedings in 2013 as is outlined in her grounding affidavit and childcare orders made in the District Court in Cork in 2013 had been set aside on appeal in the Circuit Court in June...
To continue reading
Request your trial