Waters v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant initiated judicial review proceedings seeking an order of certiorari to quash a conviction entered in 2013. This conviction had been upheld by the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The judicial review was dismissed on grounds that it constituted an abuse of process by collaterally challenging the Court of Appeal's decision, and was also inadmissible due to being hopelessly out of time, with the application for judicial review made nearly eight years after the conviction. The court found no basis for an extension of time under the relevant procedural rules. Following the principal judgment delivered on 25 August 2021, the parties were directed to file submissions on costs, but only the Respondents filed on time. The Applicant’s late submissions were not filed properly and only brought to the court’s attention in mid-2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judicial review proceedings constituted an abuse of process by seeking to collaterally challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision.
2. Whether the judicial review application was inadmissible due to delay and failure to comply with the statutory time limits.
3. The appropriate incidence of legal costs following dismissal of the judicial review proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant challenged the correctness of the principal judgment, specifically disputing the finding that the criminal proceedings were concluded.
• The Applicant criticised the judgment for failing to make orders against the Respondents.
• The Applicant relied on the conduct of the Respondents in the prior criminal proceedings as a reason to resist a costs order.
• The Applicant argued it was reasonable to pursue the judicial review proceedings despite the objections and procedural issues raised.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents contended that the judicial review proceedings were an abuse of process and hopelessly out of time.
• They argued that the Applicant’s reliance on conduct in separate criminal proceedings was impermissible in resisting costs related to the judicial review.
• The Respondents maintained entitlement to costs as the prevailing party under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reaffirmed that judicial review proceedings seeking to overturn a final decision of the Court of Appeal constitute an abuse of process and are inadmissible. The Applicant’s delay in initiating the review was excessive and could not be justified by the pursuit of appeals. The court emphasized the limited scope of costs applications, which do not allow re-litigation of substantive decisions. The court rejected the Applicant’s challenge to the correctness of the principal judgment within the costs application, noting that any such challenge must be pursued by appeal. The Applicant’s reliance on conduct in unrelated criminal proceedings was held to be irrelevant to the costs of the judicial review. The court found the Applicant’s pursuit of the proceedings unreasonable, especially given the early notice by the Respondents of their objections. Accordingly, the court found no justification for deviating from the statutory presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs.

Holding and Implications

The court AWARDED COSTS to the Respondents, entitling them to recover legal costs from the Applicant. This includes costs of two separate legal teams representing the Director of Public Prosecutions and the other Respondents, respectively, reflecting the distinct nature of the complaints against them. The costs order covers all reserved costs, written submissions, and supplemental submissions on costs. In absence of agreement, costs are to be adjudicated under the relevant statutory provisions. No broader precedent was set; the decision directly affects the parties by confirming the default rule on costs following a successful defense against judicial review proceedings that are abusive and out of time.