An Blascaod Mór Teoranta v Commissioners of Public Works (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Budd J.
• Judgment Date: 01 July 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] IEHC 112
• Docket Number: [1991 No. 6620P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 July 1997

BLASCAOD MOR TEORANTA & ORS v. COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND & ORS

BETWEEN

BLASCAOD MOR TEORANTA, PETER CALLERY, JAMES CALLERY, KAYBROOKS AND MATTHIAS JAUCH

PLAINTIFFS

AND

THE COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND, THEMINISTER FOR THE GAELTACHT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEYGENERAL

DEFENDANTS

[1997] IEHC 112

1991 No. 662OP

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

- [2000] 1 IR 1

1 of Budd J.1st July 1997

2 The Plaintiffs seek to adduce at this stage, which as Mr. Brady has pointed out, is very late in the day, in evidence, An Blascaod Mor National Historic Park Bill, 1989 as it was introduced in the Oircachtas. The application is confined simply to producing the Bill under section 5 of the Documentary Evidence Act, 1925and handing in the Bill and referring the Court to a particular section. The application is grounded on the basis that the Bill may be of assistance in dealing with a dispute in relation to the meaning of the words "lineal descendant" in section 4.4. of An Blascaod Mor National Historic Park Act, 1989.

3 The point is made by Mr. Brady SC for the Defendants that the application is made late in the day, but he also concedes that the Court is master and in charge of its own procedure. That is a point consistently made in Bennion, Statutory Interpretation 2nd edition, which notes that incertain circumstances the English Courts have looked at the parliamentary records. Here the Plaintiffs wish to refer to a specific provision of the Bill.

4 Mr. Brady SC has made the point that the Howard v Commissioners of Public Works1994 1 IR 101 which deals with statutory interpretation is relevant. In the ruling I have already delivered in these proceedings on the 17th June, 1997 concerning the exceptional circumstances in which reference might be made to parliamentary debates, I refer to the above judgment of the Supreme Court at page 31 of the transcript as follows:-

"In spite of these differences, the persuasive force of three Supreme Court judges declaring in categorical language that statutes should be interpreted solely by their express wording would lead me to follow that line in respect of statutory interpretation. However, in this case, I have important counterbalancing factors to consider viz. the implications of such an approach for the protection of the constitutional rights and for the presumption of constitutionality and the double construction rule which gives effect to that presumption. I will return to this in due course".

5 That is a reminder that in this instance I am dealing with a challenge to the constitutionality of legislation, and the Defendants are entitled to rely on the presumption of constitutionality, but in considering the provisions, it may well be that the question of the double construction rule and the severability of provisions may come into play.

6 Mr. Brady SC referred to the judgment of Murphy J, in dealing with a motion...