McGuinness v A Judge of the Circuit Court & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an unusual application for leave to seek judicial review related to an appeal against conviction in the District Court. The applicant was convicted of two road traffic offences in 2018, specifically driving without a licence and without insurance. He appealed the convictions, but his legal team was absent at the initial appeal hearing in 2019, where the District Court Order was affirmed. The appeal was reinstated shortly thereafter and proceeded in the Circuit Court on multiple occasions between 2019 and 2020. The Circuit Court Judge retired in 2022 before a final sentencing order was made, leaving the appeal incomplete.

During the appeal process, an interim ruling was made in November 2020 rejecting the applicant's request for a case stated, referencing a prior High Court decision. No formal order was drawn up following this ruling. Subsequent procedural irregularities occurred, including the applicant not being notified of certain hearings and confusion over the status of the appeal. In 2022, a different judge erroneously signed orders convicting the applicant, which were later set aside under the slip rule. The parties agree no final sentencing order exists, and the appeal must be reheard afresh by a new judge.

Separately, the applicant sought an order of prohibition against the police preventing further arrest and charging for the offences of driving without a licence or insurance, though the terms of this relief were later amended at the hearing without prior notice to respondents. The application also involves allegations related to arrests made in 2021, some arising from administrative errors in updating court records.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave to seek judicial review should be granted in respect of an interim ruling of 23 November 2020 that has no legal effect due to the absence of a final sentencing order.
2. Whether an order of prohibition should be granted preventing the police from arresting and charging the applicant for driving offences.
3. Whether judicial review should be granted to address alleged procedural unfairness and failures to notify the applicant of court decisions.
4. Whether leave should be granted to facilitate a damages claim for misfeasance in relation to the applicant’s arrests.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The applicant contends that the interim ruling of 23 November 2020 was unlawful, made in his absence, and lacked reasons, and seeks its quashing to support a damages claim.
• He seeks an order of prohibition against the police to prevent future arrests and charges related to driving without a licence or insurance, initially framed broadly and later suggested to be directed against the prosecution of the appeal.
• The applicant argues procedural unfairness due to failure to notify him of hearings and court decisions, asserting this breached his rights.
• He alleges misfeasance by the police in connection with multiple arrests, including one where he claims to have suffered injury.
• The applicant wishes to challenge a decision made on 9 July 2019 regarding his status as a first-time offender, though this ground was not pleaded.

Respondents' Arguments

• The respondents accept that no final sentencing order exists and that the appeal must be reheard afresh, rendering the interim ruling moot and without legal effect.
• They argue that judicial review should not be granted for a moot issue and that the applicant already effectively has the relief sought by being entitled to a fresh appeal.
• The respondents submit that the order of prohibition sought against the police is overly broad, unlimited in scope and time, and unrelated to the appeal process, and that no evidential basis supports such relief.
• They contend that any amended prohibition relief proposed at the hearing was not pleaded or notified in advance, and thus cannot be entertained.
• Regarding the arrests, respondents explain that some resulted from administrative errors in updating court records (PULSE system), which have since been corrected, and that charges arising from those arrests have been or will be withdrawn.
• They maintain that judicial review cannot be used as a vehicle to pursue damages claims where the underlying grounds are moot or irrelevant to liability.
• The respondents emphasize the absence of prejudice or unfairness that would justify prohibiting a fresh appeal hearing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the unusual nature of the application, particularly that no final order had been made and the appeal was incomplete due to the retirement of the Circuit Court Judge. It emphasized that judicial review cannot lie in respect of an interim ruling that has no legal effect. The ruling of 23 November 2020 was found to be moot, as the appeal must be reheard afresh, thereby negating any legal consequence of the earlier ruling.

The court acknowledged procedural flaws, including the applicant’s absence from hearings and failure to be notified, but concluded these did not give rise to an arguable case for judicial review since no binding decision had been made.

Regarding the order of prohibition sought against the police, the court highlighted the discrepancy between the relief sought in the Statement of Grounds and the relief later proposed at the hearing. It refused to allow the applicant to amend or reformulate the relief at the contested leave hearing without prior notice or evidential basis. The court found no evidential basis to support an order prohibiting the continuation of the appeal or further arrests, noting the applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice or unfairness sufficient to meet the threshold for such relief.

In relation to the arrests, the court found that administrative errors in updating the police database caused the initial arrests, and that these issues were unrelated to the applicant’s judicial review grounds. The applicant did not identify any misfeasance by other respondents, including the Circuit Court Judge.

The court rejected the use of judicial review as a vehicle to pursue damages claims where the underlying issues are moot or irrelevant to liability.

Finally, the court declined to entertain new grounds or reliefs that were not pleaded or properly introduced before the hearing, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the integrity of the leave on notice process.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE to seek judicial review on all grounds raised by the applicant.

The direct effect is that the applicant’s appeal must proceed afresh before a new Circuit Court Judge, and no judicial review relief will interfere with that process. The order of prohibition against the police was not granted, and no judicial review relief was provided to support a damages claim related to the arrests. The court’s decision does not establish new precedent but clarifies that interim rulings without legal effect are not amenable to judicial review and that procedural irregularities absent binding decisions do not justify relief. The judgment reinforces the importance of following procedural rules for amendments and the limited scope of judicial review when matters are moot.