Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Buckley v. Kirby
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant was convicted in the District Court of stealing 31 ladies’ blouses. After the prosecution closed its case, the Applicant’s solicitor applied to Judge [District] (the first-named Respondent) to dismiss the charge for want of proof. The application was refused and a conviction entered.
The Applicant lodged an appeal to the Circuit Court; that appeal has not yet been heard. In addition, the Applicant sought judicial review of the District Court conviction. The High Court (Judge [O Caoimh]) refused leave to bring judicial review proceedings on 6 December 1999. The Applicant appealed that refusal. The Supreme Court heard the appeal, affirmed the High Court order, and reserved its detailed reasons, which are set out in the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether leave for judicial review should be granted when an alternative statutory right of appeal to the Circuit Court is available and pending.
- Whether an alleged absence of evidence to support a District Court conviction can ground judicial review by way of certiorari.
- How the discretion to refuse judicial review should be exercised where the alternative remedy of appeal is clearly more appropriate.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| G v. D.P.P. [1994] 1 IR 374 |
Sets conditions for granting leave: arguable case, promptness, and appropriateness of judicial review over alternative remedies. |
Formed the framework for assessing whether the Applicant met the threshold for leave; the Court held the alternative remedy of appeal was more appropriate. |
| The State (Roche) v. Delap [1980] IR 170 |
Certiorari should not issue when an appeal has already opened in the Circuit Court. |
Used to describe the first of four possible procedural situations; distinguished because the Applicant’s appeal had not commenced. |
| R (Miller) v. Justices of Monaghan [1906] 40 ILTR 51 |
A litigant must elect between appeal and certiorari; cannot pursue both simultaneously once one path has been taken. |
Cited within Roche; supports the principle that parallel proceedings are inappropriate. |
| McGoldrick v. An Bord Pleanála [1997] 1 IR 497 |
The “real question” is which remedy—appeal or judicial review—is more appropriate, assessed on common sense and fairness. |
Adopted to acknowledge that leave need not automatically be refused merely because an appeal is pending; nevertheless, appeal was plainly preferable here. |
| R (Martin) v. Mahoney [1910] 2 IR 695 |
Absence of evidence is an error within jurisdiction, not a jurisdictional defect; certiorari will not lie solely on that ground. |
Relied upon to hold that alleged evidential insufficiency should be remedied by appeal, not judicial review. |
| Killeen v. D.P.P. [1998] 1 ILRM 1 |
Approved the principle from Martin v. Mahoney. |
Cited as recent affirmation of the evidential-insufficiency rule. |
| D.P.P. v. Judge Kelleher (Sup. Ct., 24 May 2000, unreported) |
Further modern approval of Martin v. Mahoney. |
Used to reinforce the settled position that lack of evidence does not found certiorari. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge [Supreme Court Author] reiterated four procedural scenarios involving concurrent appeal and judicial review. The Applicant’s case fell within the third scenario: an appeal was pending, had not yet been heard, and appeal was clearly the more suitable remedy.
The Court emphasised that:
- Judicial review is discretionary and will be refused where an adequate alternative remedy exists (G v. D.P.P.).
- Certiorari is unavailable where the complaint is merely that the trial judge erred in assessing evidence (Martin v. Mahoney and its modern approvals).
- The policy reasons underlying these rules include procedural efficiency and respect for the hierarchy of appellate courts.
Because the Applicant challenged only the sufficiency of evidence—a matter squarely within the competence of the appellate court—the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that judicial review was “singularly inappropriate.” The discretionary bar therefore applied, and leave was correctly refused.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED; HIGH COURT ORDER AFFIRMED.
The decision confirms that where an appeal lies—and especially where the alleged error concerns the evaluation of evidence—judicial review will not be entertained. The practical consequence for the parties is that the Applicant must pursue the pending Circuit Court appeal. The judgment does not establish new precedent but restates and consolidates existing principles governing the relationship between appeal and judicial review.
Click here to read the full judgment