The High Court dismissed a prisoner’s application for orders compelling his solicitor and counsel to release files relating to his criminal cases, ruling that the dispute raised no public law issue suitable for judicial review.
In a judgment delivered on 5 August 2010, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the named respondents were lawyers retained to defend the applicant in criminal proceedings, not servants or agents of the State. The State paid his legal costs, but that did not make the dispute over the files a public law matter, the judge said.
The applicant said he had been tried in the Central Criminal Court between December 2009 and February 2010 and faced a further trial in the Circuit Criminal Court on 18 October 2010. He alleged that he and family members had made repeated oral and written requests for his files without success. He sought mandatory orders requiring their release.
His affidavit also raised complaints about preparing his own case from prison, including access to a laptop, private communications, court documents and potential witnesses. The judge said the named respondents were not the appropriate parties for those other complaints, and that concerns about constitutional or Convention rights should first be raised with the prison governor.
The judgment referred to an earlier, similar case involving another prisoner, in which the court had said a person could arrange for a legal document to be presented to the Central Office and could ask a solicitor, relative or friend to endorse a plenary summons. The judge said the dispute with the applicant’s lawyers was not suitable for judicial review or an Article 40 application, and described the matter as res judicata.
The court dismissed the application. It also directed that the judgment be made available if similar or related applications were brought by the applicant or other prisoners. The judgment did not determine whether the files had to be released or resolve the applicant’s other complaints on their merits.