The Supreme Court has ruled that it has no power to amend an unapproved judgment delivered by the late Mr Justice Hardiman, while arranging for a statement identifying proposed factual corrections to appear beside the judgment on the Courts Service website.
The Court’s statement, delivered by Chief Justice Susan Denham on 19 October 2016, arose when the case returned for consideration of damages and costs. Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions raised concerns that some facts in Hardiman J’s earlier judgment on the prohibition of Mark Nash’s criminal trial were not fully accurate. At the Court’s request, the Chief Prosecution Solicitor later sent a letter setting out the amendments sought.
The Court said judges could correct typographical or similar errors in an unapproved judgment handed to the parties on the day it was given, and had been willing to consider factual errors brought to their attention. But it was not satisfied that it could alter a judgment delivered by a former colleague who had since died.
It therefore directed that the last version of Hardiman J’s judgment on the prohibition issue remain unapproved, while representing his final judgment for future purposes. The Court said it was satisfied Hardiman J would most likely have been willing to make the changes proposed by the DPP. It said it would ensure that a reference and link to the statement appeared beside the judgment online, to draw attention to the factual matters raised. The Court said it had no jurisdiction to go further.
The statement’s schedule listed seven proposed amendments to the earlier judgment. They included deleting a sentence referring to directions to charge Nash with the murder of Sylvia Sheils, removing wording about a “further report”, and deleting several references to an Assistant Commissioner’s review. The Court’s statement records those proposed edits; it does not say that the earlier judgment itself was formally amended.