The High Court struck out Jerry Beades’s proceedings challenging Peter Kelly’s appointment as President of the High Court, finding that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous or vexatious. It also held the case was bound to fail and an abuse of process.
Mr Justice Haughton delivered judgment on 3 June 2016 after hearing the defendants’ strike-out motion on 31 May. The defendants were Ireland, the Attorney General, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and the Minister for Justice and Equality. A separate motion by Beades seeking judgment in default of defence was deferred; the court said it would hear the parties further on that application.
Beades sought to quash the Government’s nomination of Kelly and obtain declarations that he had not been validly appointed and was not fit for the presidency. His claim included allegations that the Government had not properly assessed Kelly’s suitability and had failed to comply with the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995. He also sought a judicial council to regulate the judiciary and damages. These were claims made by Beades, not findings of the court.
The judgment said the Act’s section 16 process applied to first appointments to ordinary judicial office, not to appointing a serving judge to a court presidency. Under section 23, the Government had to consider first the qualifications and suitability of serving judges. The court concluded Kelly, already a judge, was eligible for nomination and that Beades’s statutory challenge was misconceived.
The judge also held that the Government’s nomination was an executive decision and that the pleadings did not allege a clear disregard of its constitutional powers and duties. He said proving whether the Government had considered the required matters would likely require access to cabinet discussions or records, which were protected by constitutional confidentiality provisions. The judgment concluded that the pleaded claims under the 1995 Act and the Constitution were bound to fail.
The court rejected the claim that the absence of a judicial council gave rise to an enforceable right to have one established, saying that legislation was a matter for the Oireachtas. It also found the pleaded European Convention and damages claims did not provide a basis for the case to proceed.
In a further finding, the judge concluded that the proceedings had been brought primarily to generate adverse publicity damaging to judges named in the pleadings. He ordered the plenary summons and statement of claim struck out under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or, alternatively, under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The judgment did not determine Beades’s separate default-of-defence motion.