The High Court declined an application for judicial review by John Ryan, who sought to obtain his file from his former solicitor and raised difficulty obtaining a plenary summons form while in prison.
In a judgment dated 16 June 2010, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the dispute over the file was between Ryan and his former solicitor, the second named respondent, John Herbert. The judge said he had already reached the same conclusion in a similar ruling involving Ryan and found the issue did not give rise to a potential judicial review claim.
Ryan alleged that he had made numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain the file. He said Herbert had assured Ryan’s sister that it was sent by post, but had not said when, and that Herbert told him by phone about seven weeks earlier that it had been sent. These were the applicant’s claims as recorded in the judgment; the court made no finding on whether the file had been sent.
The papers also said Ryan could not obtain the form needed to start civil proceedings in the High Court, because the Governor of Midlands Prison did not have access to a computer with internet access and could not help procure it.
The judge said the Rules of the Superior Courts did not provide for a plenary summons to be issued by post. He also said Courts Service staff were not empowered to help a prisoner draft, issue or serve one. A summons had to be presented in person at the Central Office, with the applicable fee, then €125.
The judge described the relief sought against the Governor as futile. He said Ryan could draft the relief he wanted and instruct a solicitor or relative to place it in a plenary summons form, which could then be filed at the Central Office on payment of the fee. He concluded that this did not give rise to a judicial review claim and declined the application. The judgment does not record any order requiring delivery of the file or deciding the underlying civil dispute.