The Supreme Court yesterday struck out, as an abuse of court process, motions brought by a college lecturer, Mr Denis Riordan.
Mr Riordan sought to reopen his challenges to the Divorce Act and the procedures for amending Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution on the grounds that the Supreme Court had made "serious errors" in its judgments dismissing those challenges.
Mr Justice Murray, sitting with Mrs Justice McGuinness and Mr Justice Geoghegan, also granted an order restraining Mr Riordan, of Clonconane, Redgate, Co Limerick, from taking, without leave of the Supreme Court, further motions in his proceedings against the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, the Government, the Oireachtas, the Attorney General and Ireland. The court awarded costs of the hearing against Mr Riordan.
Mr John Rogers SC, for the defendants, had applied to have Mr Riordan's motions struck out as an abuse of court process, and also asked that any further motions by Mr Riordan in the proceedings should he conditional on his having the permission of the Supreme Court to bring them.
Mr Riordan said all he was asking the court to do was to look at the Supreme Court's judgments on the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 and the 19th Amendment to the Constitution Act, which latter set out procedures for the amendment of Articles 2 and 3, and to allow him an opportunity to show they were defective.
He argued that the Supreme Court judges who delivered those decisions were biased and made such fundamental and basic errors that they must have acted in bad faith.
He alleged there was "absolute corruption" and he could not put up with this. He would rather be locked up in Mountjoy than to be free in such a society.
Mr Justice Murray said the court would grant the State's application.
Mr Riordan contended that the judgments were fundamentally flawed and contained major errors, misapplied the law and misinterpreted the Constitution. Mr Riordan also claimed the judges were corrupt in that they rendered corrupt judgments.
Mr Justice Murray said it was well established that the courts might stay proceedings to prevent abuse of court process. He said the Supreme Court had dealt in its judgments with all the matters raised here by Mr Riordan.
If a party could restart proceedings because they disagreed with the findings, this would undermine the function of the administration of justice and weaken the authority of the law.
The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to retry these issues.
Mr Riordan's motions arose from the Supreme Court's dismissal in May 1999 of Mr Riordan's challenge to the constitutionality of the procedures adopted for the amendment of Articles 2 and 3.
The court found there was nothing sinister in the procedure adopted for amendment.
The Supreme Court, in a decision in October 1998, rejected Mr Riordan's challenge to the constitutionality of the Divorce Act.
Mr Riordan will be back before the Supreme Court today seeking a temporary injunction restraining the appointment of Mr Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank.
