Manning v Gearty & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for leave to apply for judicial review brought by the Applicant against ongoing District Court proceedings in which he is charged with assault and threatening, abusive, and insulting behaviour in a public place. The charges arise from an alleged incident at a Court Office where the Applicant had sought access to a file related to another pending matter. The Applicant has also separately sought judicial review to quash a prior Circuit Court conviction related to that other matter. In the current judicial review application, the Applicant seeks an order prohibiting the District Court trial, a stay of proceedings, mandamus orders for the release of unedited digital audio recordings of previous court hearings, costs, and other reliefs. The Applicant alleges malicious prosecution, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias, conspiracy involving State actors, and breaches of constitutional and human rights. The District Court case had been moved to a different venue by the presiding judge, who later indicated she would recuse herself from hearing the case. The High Court considered affidavits and submissions from both parties before delivering judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to an order prohibiting the District Court proceedings on grounds of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and prosecutorial misconduct.
2. Whether there is evidence of judicial bias or prejudgment by the District Court judge sufficient to warrant prohibition.
3. Whether the failure to disclose digital audio recordings and alleged conspiracy by State officials amount to grounds for judicial review.
4. Whether the Applicant's extensive allegations constitute a proper basis for judicial review or amount to an abuse of process.
5. Whether the judicial review application should be granted leave having regard to the tests established in precedent concerning sufficient interest, arguable grounds, and promptness.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The District Court proceedings constitute malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
• Prosecuting Gardaí and prosecution authorities misled the court and failed to comply with court orders.
• There has been prosecutorial misconduct including premeditated perjury, criminal damage, and contempt of court.
• The presiding District Court judge demonstrated extreme bias and denied fair procedure by accepting false evidence and refusing to admit evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
• The judge unlawfully moved the case venue and refused legitimate summons applications against key individuals.
• The Applicant has been denied access to crucial digital audio recordings of prior court hearings, impeding his right to a fair trial.
• There is an ongoing conspiracy involving Gardaí, prosecution authorities, judiciary, and court staff to pervert the course of justice.
• The Applicant lacks effective legal representation despite legal aid certification.
• There is a grave risk of miscarriage of justice if the District Court case proceeds pending resolution of related judicial review proceedings.

Respondents' Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the Applicant's extensive affidavits and submissions, noting that many allegations concerned individuals and matters unrelated to the pending District Court prosecution. The court identified the main relevant issues as allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias. It found that most allegations could be addressed during the substantive hearing of the complaint rather than at the leave stage. The court acknowledged that the Applicant had legal aid but lacked effective representation. Regarding the allegation of bias, the court noted that the District Court judge had indicated she would recuse herself from hearing the case, and the court was satisfied that no basis existed for claims of prejudgment or bias. Consequently, the issue of alleged judicial bias was moot. The court concluded that the application was primarily a vehicle for airing grievances against various State actors and court officials, constituting an abuse of process. The Applicant's failure to engage with the court and attempts to seek recusal of the High Court further supported this conclusion. Applying the established test for leave to seek judicial review, the court found that the Applicant had not made out a proper arguable case warranting leave.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for leave to apply for judicial review.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant's request to prohibit the District Court proceedings and related reliefs is denied, allowing the prosecution to continue. No new legal precedent was established. The court emphasized that the judicial review process should not be used to pursue broad grievances unrelated to the specific case, as such use constitutes an abuse of process.