Wolfe v The Government of Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke J.,MacMenamin J.,Laffoy J.
• Judgment Date: 29 June 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IESCDET 94
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 29 June 2016

[2016] IESCDET 94

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke J.

MacMenamin J.

Laffoy J.

BETWEEN

JOHN WOLFE

APPLICANT

AND

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, THE GARDA COMMISSIONER & IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court refuses an order to give leave to appeal, in accordance with Article 34.5.3 of the Constitution.

REASONS GIVEN:

1 This Determination relates to an application by John Wolfe (‘the applicant’) for leave to appeal under Article 34.5.3 of the Constitution, from a judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered ex tempore on the 18th day of December, 2016, and an order perfected thereunder on the same day (Finlay Geoghegan J., Irvine J., Hogan J.).

2 As is clear from the terms of the constitutional amendment, and the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment to the Constitution, it is necessary for that, in order for this Court to grant leave, it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise in the interests of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.

3 The Court considers it desirable to point out that a Determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is final and conclusive as far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will, in due course, be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

4 The matter in issue in this case can be summarised quite briefly. John Wolfe, the applicant, brought an application to the High Court seeking judicial review for the following reasons:

‘(e) A declaration that the Garda Commissioner, Noirin O'Sullivan, failed to deal adequately with my letter dated 11.12.2014, requesting her to review whether the Fraud Squad ever conducted a proper investigation into a complaint I made on the 29-8-2013 to the Fraud Squad.

(f) A declaration that the Garda Commissioner, Noirin O'Sullivan, is in breach of EU Law by refusing to give me any information about the investigation made as a result of my complaint to the Fraud Squad on 29.8.13.

(g) A declaration that the DPP is in breach of E.U. law “right to information” relating to my complaint to the Fraud Squad dated 29.8.2013.

(h) A declaration that the DPP is in breach of E.U. law by refusing to give reasons for its [sic] decision not prosecute the person named in my complaint when I provided evidence that fraud had occurred.’

5 This application was brought ex parte before Humphreys J. in the High Court on the 14th December, 2015.

6 It appears that Mr. Wolfe obtained certain documents, under the Freedom of Information Act, from the Oireachtas, which related to certificates of claims for expenses made by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Aherne, for a period after he ceased to be Taoiseach, and while he still remained a deputy. He made a complaint to the Fraud Squad on the 29th August,...