- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
A G v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant is a litigant in person charged in the District Court with public order offences arising from events on 25 August 2019 involving his young children. On 19 January 2023 the Applicant applied in the District Court for an anonymisation order; that application was refused. The Applicant sought certiorari in the High Court; Judge Barr (High Court) refused that application on 16 September 2024 ([2024] IEHC 544). The High Court order was perfected on 12 November 2024 and the time for lodging an appeal expired on 10 December 2025.
The Applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal by notice of motion issued 24 March 2025. At the hearing on 15 July 2025 the Applicant sought the recusal of two members of the panel (Judge Faherty and Judge Allen); both judges declined to recuse and the extension application was refused by written judgment delivered 23 September 2025 ([2025] IECA 190). On 15 October 2025 the Applicant emailed seeking reversal; that application was refused and the Court dealt with costs. On 19 November 2025 the Applicant filed the present application seeking to revisit the final judgment and order of the Court of Appeal and to obtain various reliefs, asserting among other things EU law, alleged inconsistencies in practice direction CA 14, and objections to electronic delivery of judgments.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should exercise the exceptional inherent jurisdiction to revisit a final judgment or order of the Court of Appeal.
- Whether the recusal of Judge Faherty and Judge Allen was required by any reasonable apprehension of bias.
- Whether the Court of Appeal Practice Direction CA 14 was applied inconsistently such that the Applicant is entitled to relief.
- Whether the electronic delivery of the judgment infringed the constitutional requirement that justice be administered in public.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The Applicant sought revisitation of the Court of Appeal's final judgment and order, alleging insufficient emphasis on his EU law right to prepare his defence.
- The Applicant contended that Practice Direction CA 14 was applied inconsistently (pointing to different handling on specific dates) and that this inconsistency rendered parts of the practice direction void ab initio.
- The Applicant complained that the Court refused to entertain an e-mail request on 15 October 2025 to reverse the 23 September 2025 decision rather than processing it under CA 14.
- The Applicant asserted that electronic delivery of the judgment contravened the constitutional requirement that justice be administered in public.
- The Applicant relied on EU authorities (including cited CJEU material such as "Portuguese Judge v. Tribunal of Contas") and the Bangalore Principles, and invoked Irish authority referred to in submissions.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments on the present application.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| In re Greendale Developments Ltd. (No. 3) [2000] 2 I.R. 514 | Exceptional jurisdiction to revisit a final judgment of an appellate court where order operates to deny justice or breach constitutional rights. | The Court noted the Applicant did not engage with this fundamental basis or the requirement to show cogent, substantive grounds to justify a merits hearing under that jurisdiction. |
| [2025] IECA 190 | Record of the Court of Appeal judgment (background and previous ruling of 23 September 2025). | The Court relied on the summary in that judgment as the background to the present application. |
| [2024] IEHC 544 | High Court refusal of certiorari (procedural history). | Formed part of the history: High Court order that was the subject of the attempted appeal and extension application. |
| Gaultier v. The Registrar of Companies [2025] IECA 93 | Principles concerning reopening/revisiting judgments and conduct on costs applications. | The Court explained that paragraph 12 of that judgment did not show the Court had reopened a substantive judgment other than in accordance with CA 14; Applicant's interpretation was rejected. |
| Gaultier v. The Registrar of Companies [2025] IECA 58 | Substantive judgment in the appeal; context for related costs ruling. | Used to explain the sequence and substance of earlier proceedings relied on by the Applicant; Court found the Applicant misconceived the chronology and effect. |
| The State (Quinn) v. Ryan [1965] I.R. 70 | Statement that "what has not been argued has not been decided" (referred to as dictum/observation). | Noted that Allen J. had described the passage relied on by the Applicant as an "observation" rather than a "doctrine"; this was part of the Applicant's recusal material but did not justify recusal. |
| A.G. v. A Judge of the District Court [2025] IECA 129 | Conclusions regarding the genuineness of certain applications for District Court summonses. | The Court noted that Judge Allen had concurred with a conclusion in that decision; the Applicant's complaint about concurrence was treated as an error-of-law-type allegation not amounting to bias. |
| Hughes v. Worldport Communications Inc. [2005] IEHC 189 | Irish principles on following another judge of the same court (cited by Applicant in submissions). | The Applicant invoked these principles; the Court observed the Applicant did not identify precisely what inconsistency he perceived. |
| Friedman v. Residential Tenancies Board [2025] IEHC 477 | Referenced as Irish authority recently referred to by Judge Barr. | Mentioned in the Applicant's submissions; the Applicant did not demonstrate how it supported his claims of inconsistency. |
| Portuguese Judge v. Tribunal of Contas | EU precedents defining criteria of judicial independence and impartiality (invoked by the Applicant). | The Applicant appealed to these CJEU-related authorities; the Court recorded the invocation but found the Applicant did not identify a specific inconsistency or explain relevance. |
| Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct | Standards of judicial conduct and impartiality (invoked by the Applicant). | Raised in submissions; the Court found the Applicant did not demonstrate that those principles, as invoked, established a basis to revisit the judgment. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by reference to the established exceptional jurisdiction to revisit final appellate judgments (In re Greendale Developments Ltd.). It found the Applicant failed to engage with that jurisdiction's threshold requirements and did not identify cogent, substantive grounds objectively sufficient to justify a merits hearing. The recusal applications were considered against ordinary principles: complaints about prior judgments, concurrence and alleged errors of law do not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court rejected the Applicant's contention that electronic delivery of the judgment breached the constitutional requirement of public administration of justice, finding electronic delivery consistent with that requirement. The Court analysed the chronology relied on by the Applicant and concluded any perceived inconsistency in the application of Practice Direction CA 14 arose from a misunderstanding of events; even if an inconsistency had existed it would amount, at most, to an error of law, which would not justify recusal. The Court also accepted that fairness and impartiality are essential, but found the Applicant had not identified any conceivable basis for a reasonable apprehension of lack of a fair hearing. The Applicant's reliance on various EU authorities and other materials was recorded but the Court found the Applicant had not shown how those authorities established a ground for revisiting its final judgment.
Holding and Implications
REFUSED.
Holding: The Applicant's application to revisit the Court of Appeal's final judgment and order is refused; the recusal complaints were rejected; the Applicant did not meet the threshold for the Court to exercise its exceptional jurisdiction to revisit a final appellate judgment.
Implications: The direct effect is that the Court's prior judgment and order remain final and the Applicant's attempt to reopen or revisit that decision is unsuccessful. The opinion records no establishment of a new legal precedent beyond application of existing principles; no basis was found to disturb prior orders or to invalidate Practice Direction CA 14.
Alert