D. B. (A Minor) v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1999
• Date: 01 January 1999
• Court: High Court

(H.C.)

D. B. (a minor)

and

Minister for Justice

- Administrative function - Policy - Delay by State in fulfilling constitutional obligation - Whether court having jurisdiction to interfere with administrative branch of government in course of constitutional duties to secure, vindicate and enforce personal rights of citizen - Whether court interfering with administrative branch of government in ensuring that policy previously stated carried into effect.

Article 40.3.1 of the Constitution provides:- "The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen." The applicant, D.B., required to be cared for the Eastern Health Board in a secure environment, from which he could not escape. In June, 1995, the High Court made orders giving directions as to his custody, care and control by the Eastern Health Board. There was a difficulty in securing accommodation in high support units for the applicant and a number of other minors whose circumstances were similar to those of the applicant. In March, 1995, the High Court held that the State was under a constitutional obligation to establish suitable arrangements of containment with treatment, as soon as reasonably practicable. The High Court was apprised of developments proposed by the Minister for Health and the Minister for Education concerning the provision of residential places for both young offenders and children in need. In the course of a later application heard by the High Court (Kelly J.) in April, 1997, it appeared that the proposals outlined to the court two years earlier had been departed from without the court being made aware of that fact. Evidence was now given that facilities would not be available until 2001. The applicant sought a mandatory injunction directing the building of a secure unit. The respondents submitted that there was no deliberate attempt on the Minister's part to frustrate the rights of the applicant. The respondents contended that in these circumstances, an order of the type sought by the applicant ought not to be made insofar as it would involve the court becoming involved in matters of policy. Held by the High Court (Kelly J.), in granting the relief sought, 1, that in carrying out its constitutional function of defending and vindicating personal rights, the court must have available to it any power necessary to do so in an effective way. Otherwise, the court could not carry out the...