The High Court amended the wording of a 2013 order in a judicial review case concerning a conviction for not having road tax, but refused the applicant’s request to revisit the underlying decision.
In a judgment delivered on 5 June 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the order made by Mr Justice Hogan on 10 June 2013 did not accurately record the basis on which the Director of Public Prosecutions appeared in the proceedings. The DPP had appeared as “legitimus contradictor”, rather than merely representing Judge John McBride, the named respondent.
The applicant, Joseph Lavery, had sought certiorari of his conviction for an offence arising from not having road tax on 7 April 2012. He brought the present motion to revisit the order dismissing those judicial review proceedings. The judgment records that the DPP’s counsel accepted the wording of the 2013 order did not precisely reflect the ruling made at the time.
Mr Justice Humphreys said the basis for correcting the order under the slip rule had been established. He said the procedural steps taken by the applicant, including appeals that were later struck out with liberty to re-enter, did not prevent correction of the wording.
The court amended the first paragraph of the 2013 order and two references in its second paragraph, replacing “respondent” with “the D.P.P. as legitimus contradictor”. It also directed that the order be addressed to the Chief Prosecution Solicitor as well as to the applicant in person.
The judge said there was no basis, and no jurisdiction on the materials before him, to revisit the actual decision allowing the DPP to appear in that capacity. The rest of the relief sought was refused. The DPP’s application for costs of the motion was also refused, with no order as to costs because the original order contained an error.