The High Court refused all interlocutory applications brought by Joe Doocey and Melissa Kelly in a judicial review case, including requests for discovery, injunctions and an inquiry into the detention of prisoner Martin O’Toole.
In a judgment delivered on 8 December 2023, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger said the plaintiffs had not shown that they were authorised to act for O’Toole, who is serving a 15-year sentence imposed after his conviction on criminal charges in June 2023. The judge also said the motion before her did not include a properly framed request for an Article 40 inquiry.
The plaintiffs sought O’Toole’s immediate release, documents relating to his criminal trial, investigations into alleged misleading evidence and perjury, and other orders. They claimed the proceedings arose from collusion and a miscarriage of justice. Those were their allegations; the judgment did not make findings that the alleged conduct occurred.
Two earlier Article 40 applications concerning O’Toole’s detention had been refused by other High Court judges. Justice Bolger refused to order another inquiry, citing the absence of a properly before-the-court application and her finding that the plaintiffs had not established authority to act for him. She said access to the courts was not, by itself, a basis for an Article 40 application, which concerns the legality of detention. She also found no basis for ordering O’Toole’s release outside that procedure.
On discovery, the judge said the plaintiffs had not followed required procedural steps, including seeking voluntary discovery with sufficient detail. She found the requested documents were not sufficiently identified as relevant or necessary and described the application as strongly suggestive of a fishing expedition. She also distinguished the civil proceedings from discovery rights available to an accused person in a criminal case.
The court refused the requested injunctions, finding the plaintiffs had not established an arguable case for them or shown that the balance of convenience favoured granting them. It also rejected the requests concerning a writ of quo warranto, defendants’ appearances, a challenge to the offence of joint enterprise and reasonable accommodation. Among the reasons given were the lack of a sufficient legal or evidential basis, procedural non-compliance, and the plaintiffs’ failure to establish standing to challenge the offence.
Justice Bolger’s indicative view was that the defendants were entitled to their costs, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. She scheduled submissions on costs for 10.30am on 20 December 2023. That was an indicative view, not a final costs order in the judgment.