In the recent High Court case of HH v. Judge McDonnell, Judge Birmingham considered whether to grant an order quashing a previous decision of a Circuit Court to release files relating to the applicant. The complication which arose in this case was that as the order had already been complied with and the files had been released, the issue was effectively moot.
Judge Birmingham held that as the issue was moot he would refuse judicial review of the matter. In making this decision he took into account that one of the justifications for the doctrine of mootness is that it supports judicial restraint. He considered a Canadian case in which another rationale for the doctrine of mootness was held to be judicial economy. This requires that a court examine the circumstances of a case to determine if it is worthwhile to allocate scarce judicial resources to resolving the moot issue. However, taking into consideration the deep distress experienced by the applicant due to the order made by the Circuit Court, he made a number of observations. From these observations he concluded that as the decision was carefully and conscientiously made, even if there was no issue in relation to mootness, the applicant would experience difficulty trying to judicially review the decision. He then stated that “it is neither necessary nor appropriate to go further”.
Click here to read the full judgment.
Click here to read more about mootness, which PILA has identified to be one of the barriers to public interest litigation.