The High Court has struck the Judges of the Northern Circuit from a judicial review brought by J.S., finding they had been improperly joined as respondents. The order addresses only the parties to the case; it does not decide the underlying review or the applicant’s claims about delay and access to court recordings.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson on 29 May 2024, concerns a motion brought by the judges’ representatives. They asked the court to remove the judges under the Rules of the Superior Courts, arguing that the rules and established principles protecting judicial independence meant judges should not be named in this type of review without allegations of personal misconduct.
J.S. had been granted leave in November 2023 to pursue a limited judicial review concerning, among other matters, the refusal to release digital audio recordings from Circuit Court proceedings and alleged delay in obtaining a psychologist’s report for family-law issues. Leave to claim damages was limited to alleged rights breaches arising from delay in determining Circuit Court appeals. The allegations of mala fides and personal misconduct against judges had been rejected at the leave stage, and that decision was not appealed.
Justice Jackson said the review related to court proceedings and included a request for certiorari, bringing it within the rule governing joinder of judges. She also considered whether declaratory relief, damages and costs changed the position. While she said it was difficult to treat damages or costs as having the object of compelling a court to act or quashing an order, she concluded that judges should not be parties to judicial review proceedings over their decisions in the absence of allegations of mala fides or impropriety.
The court granted the motion under Order 15, rule 13 and struck the Judges of the Northern Circuit from the proceedings. The respondents had also sought, in the alternative, to strike out the case against the judges for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, but did not pursue that relief; the judge therefore did not address it.
The judgment leaves the judicial review to proceed on the terms of the earlier grant of leave. Justice Jackson noted that J.S. must consider whether all necessary parties have been included and that the rules require a copy of the review papers to be sent to the relevant court clerk or registrar. No costs order was made on the motion, with both sides given liberty to apply.