Summary of Opinion — Court of Appeal (Judgment of Judge Allen, 23 January 2026)

Factual and Procedural Background

On 15 March 2023 the Appellant was arrested at The Station and charged with two offences under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. A District Judge made a disclosure order on 29 March 2023; the Appellant complained about the adequacy of disclosure at subsequent District Court hearings on 24 May 2023 and 31 July 2023. The District Court trial was listed to commence 14 November 2023 but was postponed on multiple occasions. The Appellant was tried on 1 February 2024, convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment suspended on conditions.

The Appellant brought multiple judicial review proceedings in the High Court (three applications) and successive appeals to this Court. The applications were prolix, listing many grounds and hundreds of reliefs. The High Court (Judge Hyland, Judge Gearty and others) refused the earlier judicial review applications for reasons including that the matters were out of time, that many complaints were more appropriately ventilated on appeal, and that High Court decisions are not amenable to judicial review. The present appeal challenges the High Court's refusal of leave and the refusal to recommend assignment of solicitor and counsel under the Legal Aid - Custody Issues Scheme.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant was entitled to leave to apply for judicial review of matters arising from the District Court proceedings.
2. Whether the third judicial review application was time‑barred and/or an abuse of process (res judicata / relitigation) such that leave must be refused.
3. Whether the High Court should recommend assignment of solicitor and counsel under the Legal Aid - Custody Issues Scheme (i.e. whether the Appellant had an arguable case warranting legal aid).
4. Whether decisions of the High Court are amenable to judicial review.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant sought leave to judicially review multiple decisions and to quash her conviction; she maintained complaints about disclosure and the adequacy of evidence (including CCTV).
• The Appellant argued she was entitled to legal advice and to a recommendation for assignment of solicitor and counsel under the Legal Aid - Custody Issues Scheme.
• The Appellant alleged bias by Judge Hyland and characterised some complaints as effectively criminal appeals or a "criminal judicial review."
• The Appellant asserted non‑compliance with a Circuit Court disclosure order (alleged non‑compliance dated 4 July 2024) and sought relief in respect of that matter.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by reference to the procedural history and three prior High Court applications. The core analytical points were:

• The third judicial review application was, in substance, a repetition or variation of matters already litigated in two earlier High Court proceedings and therefore constituted relitigation and an abuse of process (res judicata). The Court relied on established authority that parties must bring forward their whole case and cannot re‑open matters that could have been raised earlier.
• Many of the Appellant's complaints (including adequacy of disclosure and relevance of CCTV) were matters for the trial judge or the appellate rehearing process in the Circuit Court; they were not appropriate subjects for a fresh judicial review in the High Court.
• The third application was made out of time; the Appellant had not sought an extension and the judge had no discretion to extend time in the circumstances described. Delay alone sufficed to refuse leave in the earlier High Court decision.
• Decisions of the High Court are not generally amenable to judicial review; allegations of bias against a High Court judge were misplaced and Hyland J. was not amenable to judicial review.
• On the legal aid question, the Legal Aid - Custody Issues Scheme requires that the High Court be satisfied that the case warrants assignment of solicitor and counsel. The correct test is whether the applicant has an arguable case with some prospect of success; the Appellant did not meet that threshold given the preclusion/res judicata and timeliness issues.
• Overall, the Appellant had not identified any arguable grounds on which leave to apply for judicial review ought to be granted; the High Court's refusal was therefore upheld as correctly founded on abuse of process, lack of arguability and timeliness.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the High Court's refusal of leave and refusal to recommend assignment of solicitor and counsel under the legal aid scheme.

Implications: The immediate consequence is that the Appellant's third judicial review application remains refused and no recommendation for assignment of solicitor and counsel was made under the Scheme. The Court treated the repeated applications as an abuse of process and confirmed that the appropriate remedies for the Appellant's complaints were through the trial and appellate routes (District Court/Circuit Court appeals), not further judicial review in the High Court. No novel legal principle was established; the decision applies established doctrines (res judicata, timeliness, and limits on judicial review) to the facts of this case.