Errors of fact in Supreme Court judgment did not affect decision

O'Donnell J (nem diss): Judicial error - jurisdiction to alter a decision prior to making and perfection of order - alleged errors of fact in a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court - Art. 34.4.6 of the Constitution - finality of Supreme Court decisions - necessity of finality - exceptional jurisdiction to revisit a judgment of the Supreme Court - whether such error was central to the reasoning of a case - errors that are trivial or inconsequential - lack of clarity in submissions by applicant.

"Every judge, particularly a judge in a final court of appeal lives with the possibility, and sometimes the reality, of judicial error. This should not be surprising. If there was no possibility of judicial mistake, either in fact or law, there would be no need for an appellate system."

"There was in my view a surprising lack of precision about both the factual matters relied upon, and the legal framework for analysis. No written legal submissions were received from the applicant. It is sufficient to say that having considered the matter carefully, I agree fully with the judgment of Clarke J. that there could be no basis on which it is said that the matters identified, properly analysed and fairly understood could approach the high threshold which is necessarily required for this court to consider setting aside a judgment it has delivered. Insomuch as there are errors of description in the narrative of the judgment, I agree that the opportunity should be taken to correct the judgment in that regard. However, those are matters which could plainly have been dealt with in correspondence and by agreement if indeed it was considered that this was a case in which it was necessary to address such matters."

Clarke J (concurring): Claim for damages for alleged breach of entitlement to timely trial - errors of fact in written judgment - errors in written judgment by deceased member of the Supreme Court (Hardiman J) - reference to samples taken by investigating Gardai - DNA samples - advances in forensic science after samples had been taken - location of button and thread - whether factual corrections changed the assessment of the court.

"In the particular and unfortunate circumstances which then prevailed, the best which the Court felt it could do was to indicate that it was sure that Hardiman J. would have been happy to correct the relevant errors. The Court also directed that there should be published a document for inclusion alongside the judgment of Hardiman J. on the website of the Courts Service noting the relevant facts."

"In all those circumstances, I am not satisfied that under this aspect of the samples issue there can be said to be any error in the judgment. The judgment accurately records what happened. Samples were taken for testing. It can safely be assumed that the samples were blood but it makes no difference in practice if they happened to be of some other human material. The samples were destroyed while being tested and no samples of human material as such were retained."

Charleton J (concurring): [judgment not yet published]