- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
O Cadhla v An tAire Dli Agus Cirt Agus Comhionannais and Ors (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff faces five criminal charges in the District Court in The City arising from alleged breaches of Covid regulations in 2021. The Plaintiff is a native Irish speaker who claims he repeatedly sought to use Irish in those proceedings, that interpreter/translation services were largely unavailable, and that this caused repeated interruptions and an allegedly unreasonable delay to his trials. He also sought copies of his court file, which he says were never provided.
This opinion concerns two applications made by the Plaintiff in the ongoing judicial review: (1) permission to add Company A and Company B as respondents to the proceedings; and (2) permission to seek relief in relation to Directive 2012/13/EU relying on a range of remedies set out in a Draft Statement of Relief. The matter was heard by Judge Dignam, who had given an earlier written judgment in the same proceedings ([2025] IEHC 376) summarising the background.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether permission should be granted to add Company A (the State) and Company B (the Attorney General) as respondents to the judicial review.
- Whether the Plaintiff should be permitted to amend the Statement of Grounds/Relief to seek remedies in relation to Directive 2012/13/EU, including declarations and orders concerning the availability of an official Irish version.
- Whether there is a justiciable basis to hold Company A or Company B legally responsible for the absence of an official Irish version of Directive 2012/13/EU.
- Whether the Plaintiff's delay in pursuing relief concerning the Directive is a bar to granting the remedies sought.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff has a right to conduct his cases through Irish and that this right was impeded because there is no official Irish version of Directive 2012/13/EU available to him.
- Because he must rely on the English version (or an unofficial Irish translation) to refer to the Directive in the criminal proceedings, his language rights and his right to trial within a reasonable time (Article 6 ECHR) have been infringed.
- He seeks (among other remedies) declarations that Directive 2012/13/EU has legal status in the State, that he is entitled to official Irish-language texts of applicable legislation (including EU directives), and an order that an official Irish version of Directive 2012/13/EU be made available to him; he also sought Company A and Company B to be named as respondents if the Court considered that appropriate.
- He also sought copies of his court file on the basis they would be relevant to these claims.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Defendants' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| [2025] IEHC 376 | Earlier judgment of Judge Dignam in the same proceedings summarising factual background and issues of party responsibility. | Used to summarise prior reasoning and to support the conclusion that Company A and Company B are not, as a matter of law, responsible for the court administration issues at the centre of the judicial review. |
| Plaintiff v Defendant (An Chúirt Uachtarach, 4ú Aibreán 2001) | Recognition that a person has the right to conduct his cases through the medium of Irish. | The court accepted this principle as established and relevant to the Plaintiff's entitlement to litigate in Irish. |
| Plaintiff v Defendant & others (An Chúirt Uachtarach, 6ú Bealtaine 2010) | Consideration of the scope of the right to have materials available in Irish and the complexity of its application to different kinds of documents. | Relied upon to note that questions about the extent of the right (e.g. whether it extends to foreign/earlier English-language instruments or EU documents) are complex and arguable and likely to provoke dispute. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Dignam first assessed whether, on the present pleadings and facts, Company A or Company B should be added as respondents. He concluded they should not: the judicial review arises from criminal prosecutions directed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (a current party) and from court administration issues (matters for The University). The court saw no legal basis on the materials before it to make Company A or Company B legally responsible for the provision of translation or for judicial allocation.
The Judge next addressed the Plaintiff's application to obtain relief in relation to Directive 2012/13/EU. He found the Plaintiff had known about the Directive at the time he originally sought permission for judicial review (29 October 2024) and had delayed in expressly seeking the remedies now advanced. That delay alone was sufficient to justify refusing the relief sought against Company A and Company B. Nonetheless, the court retained a discretion to allow amendment of the pleadings.
Exercising that discretion, the Judge refused permission to add Company A and Company B and refused leave to pursue the broad remedies at (d)(4) and (d)(5) against them (i.e. compelling them to produce an official Irish version). He did, however, permit a narrow amendment to the Statement of Grounds to insert a specific averment that the Plaintiff's language rights under the Official Languages legislation and Article 38.1 of the Constitution are infringed because no official Irish version of Directive 2012/13/EU is available to him. The Judge explained this amendment would allow the Plaintiff to argue, at the substantive hearing, that the absence of an official Irish version has impeded his ability to conduct the criminal proceedings in Irish and has affected his right to a fair and timely trial; the Director of Public Prosecutions remains the appropriate adversary (the legitimus contradictor) on that issue.
The Judge noted practical difficulties: to argue relevance of the Directive the Plaintiff will likely need to rely on the English (or an unofficial Irish) text, which is the very circumstance he alleges amounts to infringement. The court recognised the questions about scope of the right to have materials in Irish are complex and may provoke argument, but considered there was an arguable case to be heard on the limited amendment permitted.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: Permission to add Company A (the State) and Company B (the Attorney General) as respondents is DENIED. Permission to pursue the broad remedial orders compelling Company A/Company B to provide an official Irish version of Directive 2012/13/EU is DENIED. Permission is GRANTED to amend the Statement of Grounds to insert a focused averment that the Plaintiff's language rights under the Official Languages legislation and Article 38.1 of the Constitution have been infringed by the absence of an official Irish version of Directive 2012/13/EU (the text of the averment as approved by the court to be added immediately after paragraph (e)(24) in the Statement of Grounds).
Implications: The direct effect is that the Plaintiff may advance, at the substantive hearing, the limited argument that the absence of an official Irish version of Directive 2012/13/EU impeded his ability to conduct the criminal proceedings in Irish and affected his rights; the Director of Public Prosecutions (already a party) will be the legitimate respondent on that issue. No order was made compelling Company A or Company B to provide an official Irish text, and the court did not pronounce any new general precedent beyond allowing the narrow amendment for the purposes of the substantive determination.
Alert