The Court of Appeal has dismissed A.G.’s appeal against preliminary directions made in a judicial review concerning a District Court judge’s refusal to issue summonses. The appeal challenged the removal of the judge’s name from the case title and the refusal to provide an audio recording of a District Court hearing. The substantive judicial review has not yet been heard in the High Court.
A.G. was arrested and charged after an incident on 25 August 2019. He later made applications to the District Court for summonses against members of An Garda Síochána. On 10 March 2021, the District Court judge refused those applications.
When A.G. first sought leave for judicial review, the High Court directed that the judge be described in the title as “A Judge of the District Court”. The judge could be named only if the case was grounded on an allegation of mala fides or other personal misconduct. The High Court also allowed A.G. to obtain a transcript of the District Court hearing, but not the audio recording.
In 2023, the High Court granted A.G. limited leave to seek an order quashing the District Court decision. It refused leave for other relief and refused an application to add a claim alleging a premeditated unfair hearing and mala fides. A.G. did not appeal those decisions.
The Court of Appeal said the evidence before the judge when the original directions were made did not establish mala fides or personal misconduct. It found that complaints about the reasons for refusing the summonses, or an assertion that the judge read from notes, did not meet the required threshold. The court also rejected A.G.’s arguments that the High Court hearing was unfair. It said the judge had left open the possibility of later evidence supporting the naming of the judge, and that the underlying leave application was ultimately heard on notice.
The court did not consider A.G.’s constitutional and European human rights challenges to the rule on naming judges. It said those challenges had not been raised in the High Court and the Attorney General had not been joined to the appeal.
On the recording, the court held there was no decision to appeal because A.G. had not applied to the High Court for the recording under the relevant procedure. It also said the issue had become moot after he obtained and used the transcript, and that he had not identified material errors in it or given cogent reasons for needing the audio.
The court said it could have struck out the appeal over A.G.’s inadequate written submissions but exercised its discretion to hear it. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment proposed that A.G. pay the respondent’s appeal costs, with the order stayed until the substantive judicial review is finalised. The proposed costs orders would be perfected unless a party sought a different order within 14 days.