The High Court has refused Linda Rogers leave to seek relief in a re-framed judicial review and declined to recommend that she receive legal aid under the Legal Aid – Custody Issues Scheme for the proposed case.
In a judgment delivered on 6 May 2025, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the essential points in Ms Rogers’s application had either been addressed or could have been raised in her original judicial review. The court found there was no arguable case for the relief sought and no prospect of success to support a legal aid recommendation.
The application followed an earlier judgment in February 2025. Justice Gearty had said then that she would recommend the Scheme if a solicitor instructed by Ms Rogers could identify an issue that had not, and could not have, been litigated in her earlier judicial review. The matter was listed twice in April for submissions, but no solicitor attended on her behalf. Ms Rogers told the court she had contacted a solicitor but could not afford the consultation fee, and asked for an adjournment and free legal aid before identifying a new point.
The judge rejected that position, saying the Scheme, like civil legal aid, required consideration of the merits. Ms Rogers had received criminal legal aid in the District Court prosecution and had pursued an earlier High Court challenge without representation, as well as an appeal to the Circuit Court. The judge said the State was not obliged to fund a second attempt that sought to undermine earlier decisions or repeat arguments already made, or arguments that could have been made.
Ms Rogers raised complaints about the Garda investigation and District Court proceedings, access to water, disability support, digital audio recordings and transcript costs, and sought CCTV, custody records and statements. The judgment records that the judge considered these matters had already been litigated or could have been raised in the first judicial review. It says complaints about unfairness in that case should be pursued by appeal. The judge made no finding that a person with a JAM card was entitled to active assistance from a disability officer.
Ms Rogers also sought a stay of the criminal proceedings and the attendance of specific respondents; the judgment says those requests had already been refused. The judge said the hearing was managed with time for oral submissions, and that the written judgment would make the decision clear and could be read to Ms Rogers if necessary.
The court refused leave for the re-framed application and did not recommend legal aid under the Scheme. The judgment notes that Ms Rogers had told the court she had appealed the High Court decisions to the Court of Appeal and had separately appealed her convictions to the Circuit Court.