LC v Director of Oberstown

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Eagar
• Judgment Date: 09 December 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 705
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 721 J.R.]
• Date: 09 December 2016

[2016] IEHC 705

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Eagar J.

[2016 No. 721 J.R.]

BETWEEN

L.C.

APPLICANT

AND

DIRECTOR OF OBERSTOWN

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

Human Rights – S. 10(2)(e) of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Act, 2014 – Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission – Application to act as amicus curiae – Lack of information

Facts: The present application was filed by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) seeking leave of the Court to act as an amicus curiae in the substantive proceedings. The IHREC asserted that the said proceedings had raised matters of public importance in relation to the human right of the juveniles and it could present crucial evidence and assist the parties. The respondent, though not objecting to the present application, contended that the precise nature of the role of the IHREC was not clear and that the IHREC was merely asking the Court to grant the application on uniformed basis.

Mr. Justice Eagar held that the Court would need more information before exercising its discretion for granting or rejecting the relief sought. The Court held that in order to be an amicus curiae in any proceedings, the Court would be guided by the settled principles, such as bona fide interest of the applicant, issues of public importance, impartiality, number of persons affected by the outcome of the case, applicant's costs and the partisan nature of the applicant. The Court found that since the proceedings were being litigated at trial, it was not precisely clear as to what kind of expert evidence the IHREC was going to provide in the said proceedings. The Court held that since the IHREC was going to follow the recommendations of the case committee, it would be appropriate to provide those recommendations to the Court for forming a suitable opinion in that regard.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Eagar delivered on the 9th day of December, 2016

1 This is an application of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, made pursuant to s. 10(2)(e) of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Act, 2014, to appear in these proceedings as amicus curiae. This application is made on the affidavit evidence of Emily Logan, Chief Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (herein "IHREC').

2 Section 10(2)(e) sets out that the function of the IHREC includes the following:

'[...] to apply to the High Court or the Supreme Court for liberty to appear before the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, as amicus curiae in proceedings before that court that involve or are concerned with the human rights or equality rights of any person and to appear as such an amicus curiae on foot of such liberty being granted (which liberty each of the said courts is hereby empowered to grant in its absolute discretion) [...]'

3 This Court finds itself in a somewhat invidious position, where the Respondent has not clearly set out whether they are objecting or consenting to the present application, to join IHREC as amicus curiae to the proceedings. Counsel for the Respondent advised the Court that he simply wished to address the Court on the principles the courts must consider in deciding whether or not a party should be joined as amicus curiae to proceedings. Counsel for the Respondent notes that the IHREC asserts the proceedings involve a matter of public interest. He states that whilst he does not believe the IHREC have made an uninformed decision to apply to appear as amicus, little information is before the Court as to the reasons why the IHREC came to this decision - he believes that the Court is being asked to grant this application on an uninformed basis.

4 The following inter-related issues emerge from a review of the jurisprudence in this area, and will be considered by this Court in turn:

1. Whether or not the applicant has a bona fide interest in the proceedings

2. The public importance of the proceedings

3. Whether or not a great number of persons are affected by the outcome of the case

4. Whether or not the applicant can bring "added value' to the proceedings that the parties may be unable to provide

5. The impartiality of the applicant to the proceedings

6. Whether or not the proceedings are taking place in a trial court or at an appellate court level

7. The costs of appointing the applicant as amicus curiae to the proceedings

Lastly, as an over-arching point, the Court before granting such an application should have a view to the proposed role of the applicant in the proceedings.

5 In O'Brien v. Personal Injuries Assessment Board (No. 1) [2005] 3 I.R. 328, Finnegan P. set out that a court ought consider whether or not the applicant has a bona fide interest in the case, and 'is not just acting as a meddlesome busybody.' The affidavit of Ms. Logan sets out that the IHREC sought to apply to appear as amicus curiae in these proceedings following consideration of the issues arising in the case. Exhibited on affidavit are "Amicus Curiae Guidelines', which Ms. Logan states were adhered to by the IHREC in making the decision to apply to appear as amicus curiae. She sets out, in summary form, that having regard to the age of the children involved in the proceedings, the IHREC considers the case to raise "important human rights issues'. As set out above, s. 10(2)(e) of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Act, 2014, provides a legislative basis for the IHREC to apply to the Superior Courts to appear as amicus. The IHREC was established post the Good Friday Agreement, and its remit involves the protection and promotion of human rights generally. Whilst the affidavit does exhibit the "Amicus Curiae Guidelines', no information has been furnished to the Court as to the process that the IHREC engaged in, before arriving at the decision to apply to appear as amicus curiae in the...