A Supreme Court judge has said that the prospects of success in John Colm Murphy’s proposed appeal did not, by themselves, establish a sufficient basis to extend the time for bringing it.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2023, Baker J. agreed with the order proposed by Woulfe J. She wrote separately to address Murphy’s argument that the interests of justice required more time because he would be wholly successful in the substantive appeal.
Murphy relied on a Court of Appeal observation that a finding of misconduct against him was “factually and technically incorrect”. Baker J. said that observation did not mean the Court of Appeal had accepted that the Healy letter provided a total defence or found that Murphy’s appeal would inevitably succeed. She said it would be wrong to treat the observation alone as establishing an overwhelming reason to extend time.
Baker J. discussed an earlier Supreme Court case, M. O’S v. The Residential Institutions Redress Board, in which time had been extended for a judicial review challenge. She said that decision did not establish that a likely successful underlying case would invariably, or usually, warrant an extension. The court must also consider the reason for delay, whether it objectively explains the missed deadline, and the relevant circumstances and rights of the parties.
She noted that Murphy had decided, on the basis of legal advice, that an appeal would be pointless, and that the Healy letter later gave him an evidential basis on which an appeal could succeed. But, unlike the applicant in M. O’S, Murphy did nothing for two years, and Baker J. said his delay was unexplained.
Baker J. said the misconduct finding formed part of a series of findings that affected Murphy’s status as a solicitor and his constitutional right to work in his chosen profession. She also noted that no third-party rights were affected in this appeal. Her judgment addressed the extension-of-time argument and agreed with Woulfe J.’s proposed order; it did not decide the substantive appeal on its merits.