The High Court has refused a second request to extend the time for issuing and serving judicial review motions brought by Jessie Connell and Tommy Connell, and said the proceedings must be dismissed.
The brother and sister had sought temporary release from prison to attend their mother’s funeral on 29 February 2020. Their judicial reviews challenged the prison authorities’ refusal to entertain their requests for compassionate release. As described in the judgment, the authorities appeared to consider that they should instead apply for bail. The applicants argued that section 39 of the Prisons Act 2007 gave the Minister for Justice and Equality power to allow a prisoner to be absent on compassionate grounds.
On 28 February 2020, the High Court granted leave to bring the cases. The respondents had been notified of the leave application, and an arrangement was reached for the applicants to be released temporarily on bail to attend the funeral. The court directed them to serve their originating motions. Under the applicable rules, the motions were due by 7 March.
That deadline was missed. On 8 June, the court granted a first extension, giving the applicants until 23 June to issue and serve the motions. That deadline was also missed. In an affidavit supporting a second extension request, the solicitor said she had not realised stamp duty was required and that the stamping office was closed when she tried to have the documents stamped. The judgment inferred that the filing attempt had been left until the final day and found no adequate explanation for the delay. The second request was heard on 20 July.
Justice Garrett Simons said the rules did not automatically terminate the proceedings when the filing deadline was missed, but a further court order was needed for them to proceed. In deciding whether to extend time, he considered the delay, its explanation, possible prejudice and the effect on the applicants, alongside the need to enforce procedural deadlines.
He refused the extension. The original deadline had passed by more than four months, the first extension had already been missed, and the second request itself came about five weeks after the extended deadline. The judgment also said the judicial reviews were largely moot because the applicants had received temporary bail, with costs apparently the only issue outstanding. It concluded that dismissal would not prejudice them. The respondents’ consent to another extension did not determine the application.
The court proposed making no order as to costs, noting that the cases had not progressed beyond the leave application and that the applicants had obtained temporary bail. Either side could file written submissions on the proposed costs order within 14 days of the judgment.