A v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Irvine J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 21 January 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 3
• Date: 21 January 2020
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2019:000200

BETWEEN

A

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

AND

THE IRISH HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY COMMISSION

NOTICE PARTY

[2020] IESCDET 3

Clarke C.J.

Irvine J.

Baker J.

S:AP:IE:2019:000200

2018 No. 891 JR

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

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

RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Minister and the other State parties 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: 17th July, 2019 and 29 July 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 29th July, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 25th October, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 6th November, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal have been considered in a 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, [2017] 3 IR 812.

2 In addition, because this is an application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court, it is necessary that it be established that there are “exceptional circumstances” warranting a direct appeal to this Court. The Supreme Court held in Mackeral v. O'Donoghue [2015] IESCDET 27 that it would generally allow a leapfrog appeal only where the exceptional factor or factors identified make it probable both that:

(a) the case will come to the Supreme Court in any event, and;

(b) the clarification of the legal issues raised would be unlikely to significantly benefit from an intermediate appeal to the Court of Appeal.

3 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice 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.

4 Whilst the respondent does not oppose the grant of leave, this Court must itself be satisfied that the constitutional threshold has been met.

5 Any ruling in a determination concerns whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria identified above, is particular to...