T.D. and Others v Minister for Education
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Keane C.J.,Mrs. Justice Denham,Mr Justice Francis D Murphy,Murray, J.,Hardiman J.,MRJUSTICE KELLY |
| Judgment Date | 17 December 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] IESC 101 |
| Date | 17 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 203 of 2000] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
[2001] IESC 101
KEANE C.J.
DENHAM J.
MURPHY J.
MURRAY J.
HARDIMAN J.
THE SUPREME COURT
Synopsis:
CHILDREN
Constitution
Provision of residential facilities - Judicial Review - Provision of residential facilities - Mandamus - Health and Safety - Separation of powers - Role of health boards -Whether State under constitutional obligation to provide suitable arrangements for treatment of children - Whether courts entitled to intervene - Whether court order in breach of separation of powers - Children Act, 1908. (203/2000 - Supreme Court - 17/12/2001) - [2001] 4 IR 259
D (T) v Minister for Education
The case concerned the issue of whether the State was under a constitutional obligation to provide for the accommodation needs of children with particular problems. In the High Court Kelly J held that for many years, religious orders provided facilities to deal with such children but, with the decline of vocations, the burden of providing such places shifted to the State. The problem had not been addressed by the legislature or executive. The court ordered that it should be kept abreast of developments by affidavits giving details of the outcome of the forthcoming senior managers' group meetings, the number of high-support places provided and required by Health Boards nationally, steps being taken to provide appropriate premises, staff, facilities and funding, the estimated time required for the provision of such facilities, any overall plan to deal with the problem and any other relevant matter. The respondents appealed against the judgment.
Held by the Supreme Court (Keane C.J. and Murphy J delivering judgments; Denham J, Murray J and Hardiman J agreeing )in allowing the appeal and discharging the injunction granted by the High Court. Keane C.J. held that because of the absence of available places in sufficiently secure units with appropriate facilities for minors with behavioural problems, it was found necessary in some cases to accommodate them in detention centres intended for the reception of children convicted of criminal charges, a situation which had given rise to understandable concern. In the present case, it was clear that, having regard to their respective ages, some of the applicants would derive no conceivable benefit from the order granted by the High Court. However the applicants had undoubtedly been affected by the failure on the part of the state agencies to meet their particular needs and that, of itself, would afford them locus standi. The Ministers in determining that particular resources should be allocated to the building and staffing of the units which were now the subject of the order were exercising the executive power of the State on behalf of the Government as a whole. The monies required to provide and staff the units could only be made available to the Ministers by Dáil Éireann. The issue in this case was as to whether the court was also entitled to make an order specifying in detail the manner in which they were to carry out their functions so as to remedy the breach. The granting of an order of this nature was inconsistent with the distribution of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial arms of Government mandated by the Constitution. It followed that, as a matter of principle, it should not have been granted by the trial judge. Murphy J agreed with the Chief Justice holding that the absence of any express reference to accommodation, medical treatment or social welfare of any description as a constitutional right in the Constitution as enacted was a matter of significance. The failure to correct that omission in any of the twenty-four referenda which have taken place since then would suggest a conscious decision to withhold from rights which were now widely conferred by appropriate legislation the status of constitutionality in the sense of being rights conferred or recognised by the Constitution.
Citations:
CHILDREN ACT 1908 S58(4)
B (D) V MIN FOR JUSTICE 1999 1 IR 29
M (F) V MIN FOR EDUCATION 1995 1 IR 409
O'CONNOR THE IRISH JUSTICE OF THE PEACE VOL 2 162
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
CONSTITUTION ART 42
CHILDREN ACT 1908 S62(1)
CHILDREN ACT 1908 S58(2)
KING V AG 1981 IR 233
MADIGAN V AG 1986 ILRM 123
MHIC MHATHUNA V AG 1989 IR 504
MCMENAMIN V IRELAND 1996 3 IR 100
FEENEY V MIN FOR FINANCE 1986 ILRM 164
RIORDAN V AN TAOISEACH 2000 4 IR 542
O'REILLY V LIMERICK CORPORATION 1989 ILRM 181
REDLAND BRICKS LTD V MORRIS 1970 AC 652
SHARPE V HARRISON 1922 1 CH 502
RYAN V MUTUAL TONTINE ASSOCIATION 1893 1 CH 116
SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN CHILD (IRL) LTD (SPUC) V COOGAN 1989 IR 734
BOLAND V AN TAOISEACH 1974 IR 338
CROTTY V AN TAOISEACH 1987 IR 713
MCKENNA V AN TAOISEACH (NO 2) 1995 2 IR 10
QUINN, STATE V RYAN 1965 IR 106
BROWN V BOARD OF EDUCATION 347 US 483
BROWN V BOARD OF EDUCATION (NO 2) 349 US 294
BYRNE V IRELAND 1972 IR 241
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
RYAN V AG 1965 IR 294
CONSTITUTION ART 42.1
CONSTITUTION ART 42.5
G V BORD UCHTALA 1980 IR 59
ADOPTION (NO 2) BILL 1987, IN RE 1989 IR 656
CONSTITUTION ART 40
O'T (I) V B 1998 2 IR 321
MCCARTHY OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE IRISH CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION IN EUROPEAN COMMUNITY & NATIONAL LAW 1992 179–182
HOGAN UNENUMERATED PERSONAL RIGHTS: RYANS CASE REEVALUATED 1990–1992 IJ 95
CAHILL V SUTTON 1980 IR 269
O'DONOVAN V AG 1961 IR 114
BUCKLEY V AG 1948 IR 3
CONSTITUTION ART 6
CONSTITUTION ART 28.2
CONSTITUTION ART 17.2
D (D) V EASTERN HEALTH BOARD UNREP COSTELLO 3.5.1995 1995/7/1981
SINNOTT V MIN FOR EDUCATION UNREP SUPREME 12.7.2001
CONSTITUTION ART 6.1
CONSTITUTION ART6.2
CONSTITUTION ART 15.2.1
MURPHY V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1972 IR 215
PIGS MARKETING BOARD V DONNELLY LTD 1939 IR 413
BUCKLEY (SINN FEIN) V AG 1950 IR 67
CONSTITUTION ART 34.1
EAST DONEGAL CO-OP V AG 1970 IR 317
L(G) V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP GEOGHEGAN 24.3.1995 1995/3/973
T (D) V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP GEOGHEGAN 24.3.1995 1995/5/1661
CONSTITUTION ART 34.3.2
DPP, PEOPLE V O'SHEA 1982 IR 384
UN DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
UNITED MIZRAHI BANK V MIGDOL VILLAGE 1995 49 (4) PD 221
C, STATE V FRAWLEY 1976 IR 365
RICHARDSON, STATE V GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1980 ILRM 82
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PART IV
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ART 37
QUINN RETHINKING THE NATURE OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS IN THE IRISH LEGAL ORDER 2001 FSR 49
N (F) V MIN FOR EDUCATION 1995 1 IR 409
MCGEE V AG 1974 IR 284
NICOLAOU, STATE V BORD UCHTALA 1966 IR 567
O'DONOGHUE V MIN FOR HEALTH 1996 2 IR 20
CONSTITUTION ART 34.4.3
G (D) V EASTERN HEALTH BOARD 1997 3 IR 511
CONSTITUTION ART 28.4.1
CONSTITUTION ART 15
LANDERS V AG ILTR 1976
CONSTITUTION ART 40.1
CONSTITUTION ART 42.3.2
CONSTITUTION ART 42.3
CHILD CARE ACT 1991
NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD V W (H) UNREP SUPREME 8/11/2001
BERGER GOVERNMENT BY JUDICIARY 1977
MONTESQUIEU DE L'ESPRIT DES LOIX 1748
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 1776
BOWERS V HARDWICKE 478 US 186
CONSTITUTION ART 35.2
PEOPLE V SHAW 1982 IR 1
HOLLAND, STATE V KENNEDY 1977 IR 193
JUDGMENT delivered the 17th day of December, 2001 by Keane C.J.
The appeal to this court in these cases comes at the end of a lengthy sequence of such cases in the High Court, where the court has been asked to ensure that the State discharges what is claimed to be its constitutional obligation to provide for the accommodation needs of children with particular problems. The order appealed against requires the first and fifth named respondents in the first entitled proceedings (hereafter "The Ministers")
"(in relation to all the aforesaid entitled proceedings) [to] take all steps necessary to facilitate the building and opening of secure and high support units in places asfollows....."
There follows a list often "high support" or "special care" units which, under the terms of the order, are to be built and opened by specified dates in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C v Galway County Council
...conclusions must be corrected.' The aforesaid statement of Baker J is also in keeping with T.D. v Minister for Education and Ors [2001] 4 IR 259, where the Chief Justice stated: - 'I would have the gravest doubts as to whether the courts at any stage should assume the function of declaring ......
-
Leontjava v DPP
...TAOISEACH 1974 IR 338 AG V HAMILTON 1993 2 IR 250 1993 ILRM 81 SINNOTT V MIN FOR EDUCATION & ORS 2001 2 IR 545 D (T) V MIN EDUCATION 2001 4 IR 259 CONSTITUTION ART 15.4 STATE (GILLIAND) V GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1987 IR 201 DOYLE V AN TAOISEACH 1986 ILRM 693 CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.......
-
O.R v an tArd Chláraitheoir
...so deep that it is an understatement to call it a matter of policy. In my judgments in Sinnott and ( T.D [2001] 2 I.R. 545 and [2001] 4 I.R. 259, respectively) I give several reasons for the conclusion that the Courts should not impose their own opinions on questions which are not, fundam......
-
Tomás Heneghan v The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, the Government of Ireland, the Attorney General and Ireland
...approval or apparent approval (see The Attorney General v. X [1992] 1 IR 1 at p. 87 (per O'Flaherty J.), TD v. Minister for Education [2001] IESC 101, [2001] 4 IR 259 at p. 307 (per Denham J.) and p. 367 (per Hardiman J.), AO and DL v. Minister for Justice [2003] IESC 3, [2003] 1 IR 1 at p.......
-
Limited Resources And Statutory Obligations - What Happens When They Conflict?
...390 4 [1999] 4 IR 99. 5 [1996] 2 IR 296. 6 [2006] 4 IR 204. 7 [2001] 2 IR 505, [2001] 2 IR 545. 8 [1999] 1 IR 29. 9 [2000] 3 IR 62. 10 [2001] 4 IR 259. 11 [2010] IEHC 12 [2010] 4 IR 403. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist adv......
-
The Constitutional Protection of Children in Ireland ? Assessing the Need for Reform and the Available Alternatives
...altogether satisfactory guide to the identification of such rights is at least debatable”, per Keane CJ in TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259 at p 281. 29 Report of the Constitutional Review Group (Dublin: Stationary Office, 1996) at p 336. 30 G v Bord Uchtála [1980] IR 32. 31 Ibid......
-
Inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers of irish courts
...J.S.I.J. 61. 26 Pigs Marketing Board v. Donnelly (Dublin) Limited [1939] I.R. 413, at 417. 27 T.D. v. Minister for Education and others [2001] 4 I.R. 259. In this case, the Supreme Court held that an order made by Kelly J. in the High Court directing the Minister for Education and the Easte......
-
The Focus of Ireland: Homelessness in the Courts - Fagan v Dublin City Council
...v Wicklow County Council [2017] IEHC 623 [79]. 26 ibid. 27 In this regard, the court quoted from Murray J in TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259: ‘A mandatory order directing the executive to fulil a legal obligation (without specifying the means or policy to be used in fulilling th......
-
Whither Constitutional Environmental (Rights) Protection In Ireland After ?Climate Case Ireland'?
...2 IR 417 and Re a Ward of Court (withholding medical treatment) (No. 2) [1996] 2 IR 79, for example. 63 See TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259 (SC) – in particular, Keane CJ at [282] and Murphy J at [316-317], and MEO v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2012] IEHC 394.......