The High Court has refused an application by G. to reopen a judgment that granted leave to pursue judicial review on limited grounds. The application was decided on written submissions, without a further oral hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 10 July 2023, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the court’s power to revisit its own written judgment is limited and should be used sparingly. He found that the application sought to revisit matters already decided and raise arguments that could have been made at the original hearing.
The earlier judgment, delivered on 27 March 2023, granted G. leave to challenge the District Court’s refusal to issue summonses under the common informer procedure. It refused leave for claims against the District Court judge and Blanchardstown District Court Office, and for other requested relief, including an order directing the judge to issue summonses.
G. argued that the District Court Office should have facilitated a hearing on 25 February 2021, when he attended the courthouse. The court said the office had not been asked to list the matter that day and had promptly scheduled a hearing after a formal request on 5 March. It rejected the argument that an out-of-hours sitting was required because of G.’s concern that a limitation period was about to expire. The court did not decide what time limit, if any, applies to common informer applications against Garda members.
The judge also rejected G.’s requests to revisit the refusal of declaratory relief and permission to amend his statement of grounds. He said the declarations had not been supported by properly pleaded grounds and that no adequate explanation had been given for seeking amendments around two years after the proceedings began. He further found that the affidavit evidence did not establish the allegation that the District Court judge had prepared a decision in advance of the hearing.
The High Court reiterated that it could review the District Court’s decision but could not direct that summonses issue in the first instance. If G. succeeds in the judicial review, the appropriate remedy could include setting aside the decision and sending the matter back to the District Court for reconsideration.
The court refused to reopen the March judgment. It said the limited leave order could be drawn up once costs were addressed. The Director of Public Prosecutions, who was not previously a formal party, was joined as a notice party. The case was listed for 24 July 2023 to address applications about the participation of respondents and costs; the judgment does not record the outcome of those outstanding matters.