The Court of Appeal has refused two applications by a woman identified as A.R. for leave to pursue judicial review, both connected to childcare proceedings. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Máire Whelan on 26 July 2020, was agreed by Mr Justice McGovern and Ms Justice Baker.
The first application challenged High Court orders made by Mr Justice Meenan on 12 March 2018 and also concerned orders made by Mr Justice Noonan on 8 March 2018. A.R. had sought review of a Circuit Court judge’s December 2017 refusal to provide an unedited digital audio recording and transcript of a 2013 appeal hearing, along with copies of Circuit Court files.
The Court of Appeal noted that the 2013 records concerned minor children and childcare and child welfare matters. It said such records and transcripts are not generally made available, and judges retain significant discretion over requests. A.R. had not appealed the Circuit Court refusal. The court found she had identified no sufficient grounds for leave, particularly given the absence of that prior appeal, and said even the low threshold for leave had not been met.
The judgment also recorded that, ahead of a later childcare appeal hearing, the Child and Family Agency’s solicitors offered A.R. an opportunity to read reports, take notes, and not copy or photograph them. A guardian ad litem’s solicitor separately offered access to a report. A.R. confirmed she did not take up those opportunities.
The second application arose from earlier judicial review proceedings in which Mr Justice Hedigan had extended a stay in July 2014 pending determination of an appeal then lodged in the Supreme Court. A.R. sought, among other things, dismissal of five charges she described as erroneous, injunctions against government departments, the Gardaí, the DPP and District Court judiciary, imprisonment of named respondents, and disclosure of evidence including video recordings.
The Court of Appeal said the 2014 order applied to matters occurring on or before its date and did not extend to later prosecutions. It concluded that the order’s wording undermined the application and that no lawful basis or stateable ground had been shown for the requested orders. It refused both applications for leave; it did not determine the underlying allegations or grant the remedies sought.