Kavanagh v Ireland and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: MR. JUSTICE T.C. SMYTH
• Judgment Date: 21 November 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 296
• Date: 21 November 2007

KAVANAGH v IRELAND & ORS

MICHAEL KAVANAGH

Plaintiff

-AND-

THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND CHILDREN, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

[2007] IEHC 296

1269p/2007

THE HIGH COURT

DUBLIN

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Time limits

Nature of proceedings - Whether in reality judicial review - Time limits - Whether plaintiff out of time in initiating proceedings - European law - Planning process - Exempted development - Whether proposed project "plan" - Environmental impact assessment - Whether required - National development plan - O'Donnell v Dun Laoghaire Corporation [1991] ILRM 301 considered; Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Cody [1998] 4 IR 505 distinguished - Council Directive 2001/42/EC - Prisons Act 2007 (No 10) -Claim dismissed (2007/1269P - Smyth J - 31/7/2007) [2007] IEHC 296

Kavanagh v Minister for Justice

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Environmental impact assessment

European Union - Directives - Decision to close and sell prison and build new prison on greenfield site - Whether decision amounted to plan or programme for purpose of Directive - Whether decision concerned with âÇÿtown and country planning' or âÇÿland use' - Whether framework for future development consent set by decision - Whether environmental impact assessment necessary in advance of decision - Whether environmental impact assessment necessary at any stage - Whether application of Directive excluded - Whether decision constitutes projects within Directive - Appropriate trial procedure - Issues of public law - Delay - Applicable time limit for challenge - Public law nature of reliefs sought - Obligation to act promptly - Obligation to act within time - Factors to be taken into account in considering extension of time - Date upon which time started to run - Balancing of competing interests - Inordinate and inexcusable delay - Whether reasonable explanation for delay - Definition of environment assessment for purpose of Directives - Whether Directive applicable to National Development Plan - Whether Strategic Environmental Assessment required - Environmental impact assessment required under Prisons Act - Information to be contained in environmental impact assessment - Legislative procedure to be followed prior to development - Meaning of âÇÿspecific act of national legislation' - Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Cody [1998] 4 IR 505, O'Donnell v Dun Laoghaire Corporation [1991] ILRM 301, State (Cussen) v Brenann [1981] IR 181, De Roiste v Minister for Defence [2001] 1 IR 190, Noonan Services Ltd v Labour Court [2004] IEHC 42, (Unrep, Kearns J, 25/2/2004), Solan v DPP [1989] ILRM 491, Sloan v Louth County Council (Unrep, Kearns J, 7/3/2003), O'Connell v Environmental Protection Agency [2001] 4 IR 494, Max Developments Ltd v An Bord Pleanala [1994] 2 IR 121, Mulcreevy v Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government [2004] IESC 5, [2004] 1 IR 72, Martin v An Board Pleanala [2007] IESC 23, (Unrep, SC, 10/5/2007), Burgemeester en Wethouders van Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude and Others v Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland (Case C-81/96) [1998] ECR I-3923, Commission of European Communities v Ireland (Case C-392/96) [1999] ECR I-5901 and Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health (Case C-283/81) [1982] ECR-3415 considered - Council Directive 2001/42/EC - Council Directive 85/337/EC - Prisons Act 2007 (No 10), Part 4 - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986),O 39, r 1 and O 84, r 21 - Case dismissed (2007/1269P - Smyth J - 31/7/2007) [2007] IEHC 296

Kavanagh v Ireland

PRISONS ACT 2007 PART IV

EEC DIR 85/337 ART 1(5)

EEC DIR 85/337 ANNEX 1

EEC DIR 85/337 ANNEX 2

RSC O.39 r1

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE (IRL) LTD v CODY & PRINCES INVESTMENTS LTD 1998 4 IR 504

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (AMDT) ACT 2003

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 (ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT)REGS 1998 SI 125/1998

PRISONS BILL 2006

PRISONS ACT 2007 (COMMENCEMENT) ORDER 2007 SI 180/2007

DIRECTION UNDER S18(1) OF PRISONS ACT 2007 SI 251/2007

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (AMDT) ACT 2002

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE) ACT 2006

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 3(8)

O'DONNELL v DUN LAOGHAIRE CORPORATION 1991 ILRM 301

CUSSEN, STATE v BRENNAN 1981 IR 181

DE ROISTE v MIN DEFENCE 2001 1 IR 190 2001 2 ILRM 241 2001 ELR 33

NOONAN SERVICES LTD & ORS v LABOUR COURT & SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU) UNREP KEARNS 25.2.2004 2004/36/8316

SOLAN v DPP 1989 ILRM 491

SLOAN & ORS v BORD PLEANALA & LOUTH CO COUNCIL & NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY 2003 2 ILRM 61 2003 47 11520

O'CONNELL v ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY & DUNGARVAN ENERGY LTD 2001 4 IR 494 2002 1 ILRM 1 2001 19 5129

MAX DEVELOPMENT LTD v BORD PLEANALA 1994 2 IR 121

MULCREEVY v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT & DUN LAOGHAIRE/RATHDOWN CO COUNCIL 2004 1 IR 72 2004 1 ILRM 419

EEC DIR 2001/42 RECITAL 1

EEC DIR 2001/42 RECITAL 4

EEC DIR 2001/42 RECITAL 5

EEC DIR 2001/42 RECITAL 8

EEC DIR 2001/42 RECITAL 10

EEC DIR 2001/42 RECITAL 11

EEC DIR 2001/42 RECITAL 17

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 2

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 4

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 5

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 6

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 7

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 8

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 9

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 3

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 13(1)

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 13(4)

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 3(2)(a)

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 1

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 3(1)

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 3(2)

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 3(3)

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 2(a)

EEC DIR 2001/42 ART 4(1)

PRISONS ACT 2007 S17

PRISONS ACT 2007 S19

PRISONS ACT 2007 S19(2)

PRISONS ACT 2007 S20

PRISONS ACT 2007 S21

PRISONS ACT 2007 S22

PRISONS ACT 2007 S23

PRISONS ACT 2007 S24

PRISONS ACT 2007 S25

PRISONS ACT 2007 S26(1)

PRISONS ACT 2007 S26(2)

PRISONS ACT 2007 S28

LINSTER (C-287-98) 2000 ECR I-06917

EEC DIR 85/337 ART 1(5)

EEC DIR 85/337 ANNEX 2(10)(b)

MARTIN v BORD PLEANALA UNREP SUPREME 10.7.2007 2007 IESC 23

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES v IRELAND (CASE C-392/96) 1999 ECR I-05901

BURGEMEESTER EN WETHOUDERS VAN HAARLEMMERLIEDE EN SPAARNWOUDE & ORS v GEDEPUTEERDE STATEN VAN NOORD-HOLLAND (CASE C-81/96) ECR 1998 I-03923

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND (WWF) & ORS v AUTONOME PROVINZ BOZEN & ORS ECR 1999 I-05613

SRL CILFIT & LANIFICIO DE GAVARDO SPA v MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CASE C-283/81) ECR 1982 03415

1 MR. JUSTICE T.C. SMYTH DELIVERED ON TUESDAY, 31ST DAY OF JULY 2007

2 I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes of the evidence in the above-named matter.

JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE T.C. SMYTH DELIVERED THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2007

1. Introduction:

3 The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in this action are predominantly declarations (reliefs 1 - 13 inclusive): declaratory reliefs arise from consideration of matters of law. The Plaintiff seeks to have a determination of matters of EU law (relief No. 16) and a form of injunctive relief (relief No. 15). The decisions which the Plaintiff seeks to impugn are identified in paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim as decisions of the first three named Defendants announced on 26th January 2005 and allegedly adopted in the period between November, 2004 and January, 2005 to develop on an agriculturally zoned 150 acre rural site at Thornton Hall farm i.e. across the road from his (the Plaintiff's) family residence, a new major prison development, a new CMH for the state and/or both, without prior public consultation, without carrying out any and/or any proper environmental assessment in accordance with EC law of their likely significant effects on the environment.

2. The Reliefs Claimed:

4 In addition to those identified above, relief is also sought in respect of "subsequent modifications" to the foregoing, and these are identified at paragraphs 68, 69 and 70 of the Statement of Claim and specifically as:-

"(a) an agreement to sanction in April, 2007 the purchase of additional lands adjacent to the site for the purpose of using the said lands to build a new access road into the site."

5 (I pause parenthetically to observe, that it is one of the several tangential matters that arose. It was said by the Plaintiff to be a plan or programme or part thereof for the purposes of the Directive, to which I will refer, and this acquisition (by option on 3 April 2007 and by final decision of 18 July 2007) of 8.7 acres to facilitate access to the site of the intended prison other than by the existing R130 which was originally considered suitable for the prison project. I am satisfied and find as a fact on the undisputed or unchallenged evidence of Mr. John Boyle (T2 p176 Q139) that this has been done to alleviate the concerns of the local community. It is expected that it will also facilitate the construction of the prison project. The clear intendment is to diminish the impact of the prison project if and when it passes through the several stages of Part 4 of the Prisons Act 2007 and comes to be implemented.)

"(b) what is described in paragraph 70 as "a variation of the precise location of the CMH on the Thornton Hall farm site."

6 The impugned decisions are further described in paragraphs 73 to 76 of the statement of Claim as:-

7 (1) The decision to close and sell Mountjoy Prison and to build a new prison at Thornton Hall during the period November 2004 to January 2005.

8 (2) The decision to close and sell the CMH in Dundrum for development and to build a new CMH at Thornton Hall and any modification thereof.

9 (3) A combination of both decisions.

10 (4) The inclusion of the decision to close and sell Mountjoy Prison and to build a new prison at Thornton Hall in the National Development Plan 2007 to 2013 adopted in January 2007.

11 The manner in which the impugned...