The Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991 and The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and Council Regulation 2201/2003 and I C (A Minor) between Z C v A G

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 14 September 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 98
• Date: 14 September 2020
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2020:000101 2019 No. 16 HLC

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD ABDUCTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTODY ORDERS ACT 1991

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

AND IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL REGULATION 2201/2003

AND IN THE MATTER OF I C (A MINOR)

BETWEEN

Z C

APPLICANT

AND

A G

RESPONDENT

[2020] IESCDET 98

Clarke C.J.

MacMenamin J.

Baker J.

S:AP:IE:2020:000101

A:AP:IE:2020:000127

2019 No. 16 HLC

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Respondent / Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 5 th August, 2020

DATE OF ORDER: 5 th August, 2020

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 5 th August, 2020

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 26 th August, 2020 AND WAS NOT IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 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 Thirty-third 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 Quinn Insurance Ltd v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 IR 812. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave and the respondent's notice filed are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.

3 Any ruling in a determination concerns whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria identified above, is particular to that application, and is final and conclusive only to that extent and as between the parties.

4 The respondent opposes the grant of leave.

The Application

5 This is the application of the mother of a young boy, now aged 8 years of age, for leave to appeal to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution from the order of the Court of Appeal of 5 August 2020, by which for the reasons therein set out in the reserved judgment of Power J., with which Noonan and Binchy JJ. agreed, I.e., the minor named in the title hereto, was directed to be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of Poland on or before Tuesday 15 ^th September 2020.

6 The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the High Court, per Simons J., by which the application of the father of the child for his return to the jurisdiction of the Polish courts was refused because it appeared to the High Court judge that to so return the child would expose him to a “grave risk” of physical or psychological harm or would otherwise place...