M. G. (Suing by his Mother and next Friend J. G.) v The Director of Oberstown Children's Detention Centre

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 16 July 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 176
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 16 July 2019

[2019] IESCDET 176

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

MacMenamin J.

O'Malley J.

BETWEEN

M. G. (SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND J. G.)

APPLICANT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF OBERSTOWN CHILDREN'S DETENTION CENTRE THE MINISTER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH AFFAIRE

AND

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT:

The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: High Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 3 rd May, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 3 rd May, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 7 th May, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 4 th June, 2019 AND WAS NOT IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals is set out in the Constitution. As is clear from the terms of Article 34.5.3° thereof and the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty-third Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal, that it be established by the applicant that the decision sought to be appealed involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice that there be an appeal to this Court. In addition, because this is an application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court, it is also necessary that it be established that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ warranting a direct appeal to this Court.

2 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the 33 ^rd Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions[2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration)[2017] IESC 73. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called “leapfrog appeal” direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions(2017) IESCDET...