The Court of Appeal has refused a father permission to challenge by judicial review a Cavan District Court order concerning access to his children, holding that he should instead have appealed the decision to the Circuit Court.
GP had sought to vary an existing access order so that he could homeschool his children every second Friday and teach them his native language. He also sought daily phone contact.
An expert appointed to assess the children's best interests prepared a report. GP was shown the report several months before the hearing and again for about an hour immediately beforehand. He then cross-examined the expert at the District Court hearing on 26 July 2024.
GP challenged the expert's objectivity and that of the children's school principal. He also sought an adjournment so the principal could give evidence. The District Court refused the adjournment, declined to allow the proposed fortnightly homeschooling and restricted phone contact to four times per week.
GP subsequently sought judicial review. He complained about his access to the expert report, the judge's assessment of witnesses, the refusal to call the principal, reliance on the judge's own experience as a parent and an additional condition in the perfected order preventing removal of the children from the jurisdiction without consent or court permission.
The High Court refused leave, principally because GP could have appealed to the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeal agreed.
Ms Justice Burns held that judicial review examines whether a decision-maker acted lawfully and within jurisdiction; it is not a substitute for an appeal on whether the decision itself was correct. Each of GP's complaints concerned matters the District Court judge was entitled to determine.
The court also rejected GP's attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the rule preventing judges from being named in judicial review proceedings absent an allegation of bad faith.
The appeal was dismissed and leave for judicial review refused.