The High Court has set aside permission for a judicial review against the Minister for Justice and struck out the proceedings against the Minister, finding that the applicant had not shown a legal basis for making the Minister responsible for the matters raised.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Conor Dignam on 4 July 2025, concerns an application for judicial review brought by Diarmaid Ó Cadhla. He had received leave to apply on an ex parte basis on 31 October 2024. The Minister later sought to have the proceedings dismissed under the court rules or its inherent jurisdiction.
The applicant is facing five District Court criminal summonses concerning alleged breaches of Covid regulations in 2021. He says he is a native Irish speaker and repeatedly asked to conduct those cases in Irish. He alleges that interpretation was available only once, that the cases were delayed, and that he did not receive complete court files or evidence. He sought declarations concerning alleged breaches of his language and human rights, as well as orders for the court files and related information.
The Minister argued that he had no legal responsibility for court scheduling, the conduct of proceedings, interpretation services or provision of court files. The applicant argued that the alleged failures were systemic and that the Minister should be responsible for them. He also relied on a statutory provision requiring the Courts Service Board to consider government policy when carrying out its functions.
Justice Dignam said the claims and grounds concerned the conduct of court proceedings, the availability of an Irish-speaking judge and interpretation, and services for litigants. He found that the applicant had not shown that the Minister was legally responsible for those matters. The judgment said judicial assignments and the conduct of proceedings did not fall within the Minister’s role, while court services were a matter for the Courts Service. It also said the statutory duty cited by the applicant belonged to the Courts Service, not the Minister.
The judge concluded that the proceedings against the Minister disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were bound to fail. He noted that the State might potentially be responsible, but the applicant had not asked to amend the proceedings or the leave granted, despite amendment having been discussed earlier.
The order was limited to setting aside leave and striking out the proceedings against the Minister. The Courts Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions had not applied to set aside leave or strike out the claims against them; the judgment said the applicant remained able to seek a remedy against those parties. It did not determine the underlying allegations about language services, delays or access to court records.