The High Court has refused Joseph Lavery liberty to issue four proposed motions seeking to revisit earlier orders in three judicial review cases. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled on 13 March 2018 that the applications disclosed no grounds for reopening the decisions.
Three proposed motions concerned orders in cases against the Director of Public Prosecutions and a District Court judge. They sought to set aside decisions substituting the DPP for judges as a respondent, a decision giving the DPP liberty to seek an Isaac Wunder order, and a refusal of leave to pursue judicial review.
The judge said the respondent substitutions and the decision giving the DPP liberty to seek an Isaac Wunder order were procedural matters. Any challenge should have been made by appeal, he said, rather than by a motion brought after the cases had concluded. The refusal of leave had also become a perfected final order. The judge said none of the recognised grounds for revisiting such an order applied, including correction of a material factual error, fraud, clerical error or exceptional circumstances involving constitutional justice.
The remaining proposed motion sought to set aside the Isaac Wunder order made on 4 July 2016. Such an order can potentially be revisited if there has been a significant change in circumstances, the judge said, and the order itself allowed Lavery to apply on 48 hours’ notice. But permission to bring a motion required at least a reasonable prospect of success and legitimate initial grounds.
Lavery’s affidavit argued that he had not been served with notice of the application for the order and had been denied an opportunity to respond by sworn affidavit. The judge said he had been satisfied at the time that Lavery had been properly made aware of the application, and had included the right to apply later as a safeguard. The affidavit also accused the judge of “fraud and treachery” and made other allegations. The judge said those claims did not establish grounds to discharge the order.
The court declined permission for all four proposed motions. The judgment did not lift or vary the existing Isaac Wunder order.