Health Service Executive -v- JC

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Horgan P.
• Judgment Date: 12 June 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEDC 13
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: http://justis.com/court/2844

[2015] IEDC 13

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE (HSE)

APPLICANT

-AND-

JC

RESPONDENT

CHILD CARE ACT 1991, Section 29(5)

IN THE MATTER OF SC, A CHILD

Summary

1. The Applicant in this matter is Dr. CC who requested ac cess to “relevant court doc uments” for the purposes set out in section 29

(5) of the Child Care Act 1991 (as amended) in accordance with Order 61A of t he District Court Rules (2014) subject to the directions

set out in paragraph 3 below. Dr. CC seeks access on her own behalf and on behalf of the Child Care Law Reporting Project members

(as approved by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs) to “relevant court documents” so that she and her colleagues can

acc urately prepare reports of c ases and also discharge their wider research role.

2. Counsel on behalf of Dr. CC defines “relevant c ourt documents” as;

(a) all notice of application (or equivalent originating documents howsoever desc ribed) in the above proceedings

(b) all pleadings and other documents (including reports and the terms of set tlement, if any, in the course of these

proceedings;

(c) any order made by the Court in these proc eedings (including any judgment provided to the parties in these

proceedings) but does not include any doc ument, the c ontents of which are expressed to be without prejudice or terms

which have a like effect.

3. It is submitted on behalf of Dr. CC that “other c ourt doc uments” includes acc ess to Social Work/ Guardian ad Litem and any other

professional reports submitted to the Court in Child Care cases.

4. The limiting directions suggest ed that the Court should apply are that suc h documents;

(a) May be inspec ted and notes taken;

(b) May not be copied by any means;

(c) May not be removed from the Court building;

(d) Should be returned to suc h person as may have provided them without delay onc e inspected. And, for t he avoidance

of doubt, section 29 (1) of the Child Care Act 1991 is to apply save to t he extent that it has been dis-applied by this

order or by operation of law.

Statutes Considered

5. The following statutory provisions were considered; Section 29 (1) and (5) Child Care Act 1991 as amended by sect ion 3 Child Care

(Amendment) Act 2007; Section 31 of the Child Care Act 1991; Section 40 Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 as amended by section

31 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2008 and the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013; Section 7 Courts Ac t

1964 as amended by section 22 of Courts Act 1971 and section 5 Interpretation Act , 2005.

Rules Considered

6. The following rules were considered; Order 84 District Court Rules S.I 1993/97; SI No 539/2004 District Court (Children) Rules 2004;

SI 5/2006 District Court (Children) Rules 2006; S.I No 469 of 2008: District Court (Child Care) Rules 2008 Order 61A (rules providing

for sect ion 40 Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and section 29(5) Child Care Act 1991); S.I No 467/2012 Child Care Act 1991

(sect ion 29(7)) Regulations; S.I 141 of 2015 Order 61A (sect ion 40 Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004: S.I 141/2015; District Court

(Child Care) Rules 2015 S.I 143/2015.

Cases Considered

7. The following cases were c onsidered; Eastern Health Board v Fitness t o Pract ice Committee[1998] 3 IR 399; RD v McGuinness

[1999] 2 IR 411; RM v DM (Practice in Camera) [2000] 3 I.R 373; Eastern Health Board v E No. 2 [2000] 1 I.R 451; MS v Gibbons

[2007] 3 IR 584; HSE v McAnaspie [2012] IR 548; Martin v Legal Aid Board [2007] 2 IR 759; Kiely v Minister for Social Welfare [1977]

IR 267; Health Service Executive v S.C (a minor) & Anor [2013] IEHC 516; E.H.B. v. E. (No.2) [2000] I.R.451; Miggin (a Minor) v. HSE

& Gannon [2010] IEHC 169, Breslin v McKenna [2008] IESC 43 [2009] 1 I.R 298; AIB PLC v George Tracey (no.2)[2013] 3 JI c 2106;

Health Service Executive v L.N & Ors [2012] IEHC 611; Leneghan-v-Judge Brennan & Ors [2015]IEHC 143; Crilly T & J Farrington

Limited [2001]3 IR 252; O’Dwyer v Keegan [1997] 2 ILRM 401. DPP v Flanagan [1979] IR 265; Howard v Commissioner for Public

Works [1994] 1 IR 101; B and P v United Kingdom (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 529; and Moser v Austria (Application no. 12643/02) (2006).

Facts

8. The Applicant is a bona fide researcher and founder of the Child Care Law Reporting Project (CCLRP). The CCLRP is an independent

project est ablished under section 3 of the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2007 (in accordance with regulations made under that Ac t by

S.I 467 of 2012).

9. Dr. CC and her research team attend Courts where Child Care cases are heard in order to report on those proceedings while

protecting the anonymity of the children and their families. The CCLRP involves the presenc e of a single reporter in each case that is