The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge by Peter Murphy to High Court filing fees which he said impeded his ability to pursue civil proceedings.
Murphy challenged fees of £10 for filing a notice of motion and £7 for filing an affidavit under the Supreme Court and High Court (Fees) Order 1989. He argued that, because he was living on a weekly social welfare payment of £67.50, the charges prevented him from applying for judgment in default in a separate damages action.
That underlying case arose from Murphy’s allegation that he had been unlawfully confined in a cell at Kilmainham Courthouse for almost six hours on 29 May 1997. He had sued Judge Gillian M Hussey and Garda Stephen Cunningham over the alleged detention. The Supreme Court made no finding on the merits of that claim.
Murphy obtained leave in October 1999 to challenge the filing fees by judicial review. The High Court rejected his case in May 2000.
On appeal, Mr Justice Francis D Murphy accepted that citizens have a constitutional right of access to the courts under Article 40.3. The State cannot prevent access and must respect and vindicate that right.
However, the judge held that the Constitution does not require all civil court services to be provided free of charge. Public services may be funded through taxation, user charges or a combination of both. Evidence before the court showed that about £11 million in court fees had been collected in 1998 against approximately £34 million spent on court staff and general operating costs, excluding judicial salaries.
The court held that reasonable court charges are constitutionally permissible. It found that Murphy had not demonstrated that the £17 at issue represented a significant obstacle to his litigation, particularly having regard to other proceedings he had pursued and the absence of evidence excluding the availability of civil legal aid.
The appeal was dismissed.