G. v Director of Public Prosecutions (Approved)

             Having considered this email, I directed the registrar to inform the applicant that I did not intend to revisit the leave judgment.� I also directed that the leave order should be finalised, i.e. � perfected �, to ensure that the applicant had sufficient time to issue an originating motion in advance of the return date of 27 March 2023.� The present judgment recites the rationale for my decision not to revisit the leave judgment.�

             It is only at appellate stage that the jurisdiction to revisit a written judgment assumes an especial significance.� This is because an application to revisit the written judgment may be the only avenue open to a party dissatisfied with a decision of an appellate court.� In practice, such applications are rare, and even more rarely successful.

             A very useful summary of the principles is to be found in the judgment of the High Court (McDonald J.) in HKR Middle East Architects Engineering LL v. English [2021] IEHC 376 .

         Between these two extremes, however, an aggrieved party will normally be expected to avail of their right of appeal rather than seek to have the judgment revisited by the court of first instance.�

         The applicant has identified three paragraphs of the leave judgment which he seeks to have amended.� I address each of these, in turn, below.