Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> Breathnach v. Government [2001] IESC 21 (22 February 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2001/21.html
Cite as: [2001] IESC 21
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Breathnach v. Government [2001] IESC 21 (22nd February, 2001)
1. It
must be commented upon yet again that the Appellant has wrongly and unlawfully
purported to join two High Court Judges as Respondents to this appeal. If
after today’s judgments he attempts to do this on future occasions he is
in jeopardy of the Notice of Appeal being struck our by this Court. I would in
this case strike out that part of the title to the proceedings.
2. The
basic complaint in this judicial review proceeding was that a person who was
not legally represented such as the Appellant, was not given the same
facilities in prison for preparing legal cases such as his District Court
appeals as a legally represented prisoner would have. On foot of this
complaint the Appellant has sought leave to apply for an Order of Certiorari
quashing District Court convictions and appeal proceedings pending before the
Circuit Court together with an appropriate declaratory order dealing with his
complaints. The High Court (Carney J.) gave him limited leave. The ruling of
Carney J. read as follows:
3. The
Appellant seems to be under the impression that the High Court is not entitled
in granting leave to limit the leave granted or alter the type of relief being
sought. This is entirely incorrect. There would have been no justification
for giving leave for certiorari. But if the High Court considered that an
arguable case had been made out of an unlawful discrimination as between
legally represented prisoners and prisoners not legally represented in relation
to the preparation of their cases then it was correct for the High Court to
give leave addressing that issue only. I express no view as to whether the
particular relief granted by Carney J. was the appropriate one for this purpose
as it does not arise in this appeal. This appeal is confined to the issue
which I have mentioned, that is to say, the alteration of the reliefs by Carney
J. and to the Appellant’s usual complaints about the procedure adopted in
prisoner applications in the High Court. This last matter has already been
dealt with by this Court in a judgment of McGuinness J. None of the other
matters referred to in the Notice of Appeal would appear to be relevant to the
judicial review sought.