Supreme Court reserves judgment on Denis Riordan appeal

Judgment was reserved by a three-judge Supreme Court yesterday on an appeal by Co Limerick lecturer Mr Denis Riordan. He was appealing against the High Court's decision to strike out, as an abuse of court process, his action for damages against eight judges and former judges of the Supreme Court.

Mr Riordan had claimed the Supreme Court judges, through their handling of actions taken by him, including an unsuccessful challenge to divorce legislation, had "attacked the social order of the State and damaged the welfare of the nation by their corrupt actions". He further claimed the judges were biased and that any judge who granted a divorce was a corrupt judge.

In June 2000, the High Court granted an application by Mr John Rogers SC, for the judges, to dismiss Mr Riordan's proposed action as an abuse of the process of the court. Mr Justice Smyth found Mr Riordan's pleadings contained scandalous allegations and awarded costs against Mr Riordan.

In his appeal against that decision yesterday, Mr Riordan repeated his claim that the respondent judges were corrupt and said the judgments they had delivered on his actions were deliberately defective. If the court was to decide to refer the issues back to the High Court, those issues should be tried by a jury and not a judge, he added.

He also contended a Supreme Court consisting of three judges or five judges was a "division" of the Supreme Court. He said decisions must be made by a full Supreme Court.

In exchanges with the three judges, he denied he was of the view that any judge was corrupt who made a finding adverse to Mr Riordan. He also denied he was effectively saying that any judge was corrupt if they disagreed with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Opposing the appeal, Mr John Rogers SC, for the judge respondents, repeated his argument that the proposed action was an abuse of court process. Mr Rogers said this contention was clearly evident from Mr Riordan's claim that any judge who granted a decree of divorce was corrupt.

At the close of the hearing, Mr Justice Murray, sitting with Mr Justice Hardiman and Mr Justice Fennelly, said the court would reserve its decision.