THE SUPREME COURT

								1999 No. 234

Murray, J.
Hardiman, J.
Geoghegan J.

IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

BETWEEN

STIOFAN BREATHNACH

								APPLICANT

AND

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATURE, MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND MANAGER OF WHEATFIELD, PLACE OF DETENTION

								RESPONDENTS

								Record No. 1998 No. 369JR

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Geoghegan delivered 22nd day of February 2001 [nem. diss.]

	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.
	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:
	“The Applicant may have leave to seek judicial review by way of mandamus requiring the Governor of Wheatfield Prison to show cause as to why the Applicant should not be afforded the same facilities for preparing his District Court appeals as a prisoner who is legally represented.”

	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.  
	I would dismiss the appeal.