The High Court dismissed Denis Riordan’s constitutional challenge to legislation governing the composition and operation of Irish courts, and ordered that he could bring further proceedings against specified parties only with prior leave.
In a judgment delivered on 6 October 2006, Mr Justice T.C. Smyth rejected the contention that Supreme Court decisions made by divisions of three or five judges were not decisions of the Supreme Court as the final court of appeal. He held that the Constitution did not require the full membership of the Supreme Court to sit in every case and that there was no constitutional prohibition on the court sitting in divisions.
The judgment also rejected Riordan’s challenges to statutory provisions concerning the number of Supreme Court judges and the temporary assignment of judges between courts. The judge concluded that none of the statutory provisions in issue was repugnant to the Constitution.
A separate claim concerned the Court of Criminal Appeal and its role in an appeal involving DPP v Gilligan. The court found Riordan had no standing to challenge that court’s composition: he was not a party to the appeal and had no direct or personal interest in the matter. The judge described allegations made against the Court of Criminal Appeal in connection with that appeal as “scandalous and unwarranted”.
The judgment recounted earlier proceedings, including a 2001 Supreme Court order restricting Riordan’s litigation and a 2003 Supreme Court order granting leave for some claims in this case. The judge said the record before him did not show that the Supreme Court had been told of an earlier High Court decision refusing leave for substantially similar constitutional claims.
The court dismissed the action and, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, restrained Riordan from bringing proceedings against the parties to the case, specified officeholders, the Oireachtas, the Government, its members or Ireland without prior leave. The order allows exceptions concerning the amount of costs and an appeal against this decision. Any leave application must be in writing, on notice to intended defendants or respondents, supported by an affidavit detailing earlier proceedings and their outcomes, and accompanied by evidence that court-ordered costs and expenses have been paid. The judgment said leave could be sought from the High Court or, where appropriate as first determined by that court, the Supreme Court.