The High Court has refused an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings over a District Court judge’s description of a criminal case as involving “children, videos and social media”. The applicant argued that the remark suggested inappropriate images of children and showed bias against him.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2025, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the application sought declaratory relief about a statement, not review of a court decision. The applicant did not seek to quash a decision, and the judge said there was no substantial judicial review remedy supporting the requested declaration.
The applicant was charged with affray and appeared in Tallaght District Court in January 2024. On 30 April 2024, a District Court judge directed that he and another adult be made co-defendants with a child in relation to the same allegation. The cases were then processed together for a period. When the matter was called on 20 May 2024, the respondent judge referred to it as involving “children, videos and social media”, or words to that effect.
The High Court said the context showed that the child or children were co-accused, and that the phrase was capable of an innocuous interpretation. The judgment said it could not reasonably imply that the applicant had committed an offence against a child or that the case concerned abusive images. The applicant had also confirmed that the discussion following the remark concerned Children’s Court procedures.
The judge noted that the applicant had not raised the issue with the respondent judge at the time, and had declined to provide an affidavit explaining his efforts to correct the statement. The judgment said a party concerned about a potentially damaging remark should bring it to the judge’s attention so it can be clarified or corrected. It also held that statements made by a judge while performing a judicial function attract absolute privilege under the Defamation Act 2009.
The court concluded that judicial review was not an appropriate way to challenge the remark and that there was no arguable ground for the relief sought. It refused the application. The judgment noted there were no costs implications because the application was made ex parte. It did not decide the underlying criminal case, and said there was no decision to appeal “as yet”.