The High Court has refused a mother’s application for judicial review over the absence of a written record or digital audio recording of a Circuit Court judgment affirming care orders for her children. Ms Justice Baker held that the application was out of time and that the remedies sought would be futile and of no practical benefit.
The case concerned an appeal heard over eight days at Fermoy Circuit Court in October 2013. Judge Riordan gave an ex tempore judgment, which was not written down, affirming full care orders previously made by the District Court. The mother and children were represented by lawyers during the appeal. The High Court judgment said there was no suggestion that Judge Riordan had failed to give reasons; the dispute concerned the absence of a record made by the judge and disagreement about what his reasons were.
The mother sought declarations that a written judgment or recording should be available in such cases and that a rehearing should be ordered if the parties could not agree on the judge’s findings and reasoning. She also sought to quash the Circuit Court order and, if necessary, compel a fresh appeal hearing.
After the Circuit Court decision, no step was taken to challenge it until later District Court proceedings concerning access to the younger child. In June 2015, the mother sought the judge’s notes or a recording. The judge said he had no notes and little recollection of the matter; the court system had not been operating in Fermoy when he delivered judgment. The parties’ lawyers tried but failed to agree on a note of what had been said.
Ms Justice Baker rejected the argument that time began to run only when the judge confirmed he had no notes in July 2015. She said the central complaint was the failure to provide a written judgment in October 2013, and the applicants had not explained the nearly two-year delay before seeking judicial review. Leave had been granted in August 2015, about 22 months after the Circuit Court decision.
The judge also found that an order requiring a record could not be carried out because no recording or judge’s notes existed. She said no legal basis had been established for an obligation on a court to provide a written record of reasons delivered orally. She noted that the parties had been represented when the judgment was given and that lawyers had taken notes, although no agreed note was before her.
The High Court refused all relief. It did not order a rehearing or set aside the care orders. The judgment said any future application to vary or discharge a care order, or seek directions about the children’s welfare, would have to be made afresh in the District Court, which would consider the evidence and circumstances at that time.