In a recent judgement, a high court judge rejected the claims brought forward by three petitioners, criticising their intent to stir up prejudiced feelings against migrants. The applicants – Melissa Kelly, Amanda Farrelly, and Alan Croghan – were rebuffed by Mr Justice David Holland, who accused them of using the court as a platform to voice “unsubstantiated conspiracy theories”.
In his ruling on Thursday, Mr Justice Holland pointed out that the applicants’ legal arguments failed to establish grounds for any injunction that would prevent the repurposing of a former paint factory in Coolock, Dublin, into a refugee housing site. Previously, the site had been the scene of violent confrontations, fires, and significant unrest during the summer amid discussions to erect 230 pre-fabricated units to shelter as many as 741 international protection seekers.
Delivering his decision, Mr Justice Holland pulled no punches in his criticism of the petitioners’ claims. He highlighted that their accusations were indicative of inflammatory rhetoric that encroached on racist xenophobia and discrimination, potentially leading to graver consequences as history has shown. The judge called out their narrative as being derogatory, dehumanising towards migrants, and falsely associating them with the spread of diseases and crimes.
Mr Justice Holland made it abundantly clear that the petitioners’ clear motive, despite their denials, was to incite unwarranted antipathy towards migrants. He outlined that injunctions are a response to tangible evidence, stressing that no such evidence, indicating risk or incidence of genocide, forced relocation, outbreak of diseases or civil strife, was presented before the court. He also denied the baseless accusations levelled against Garda Commissioner Drew Harris, intimating that there was no evidence presented to back these claims.
He stated unequivocally that the issue of migration undoubtedly poses a significant political obstacle, not just in Ireland, but globally. He emphasized the necessity for legal supervision of migration processes given the sizable population expressing legitimate worries about migration regulation. It was hoped that these worries would garner attention from the Oireachtas, added the judge. Yet, he outright dismissed the claim brokered by the plaintiffs that their respective views could be linked to either the people of Coolock or globally to all the Irish populace.
Previous week, legal advisors for the agency considering the transformation of the former Crown Paints storage facility into a dwelling for applicants seeking international protection assured that no work would kick off until it is confirmed that the site is secure. The court was informed that presently, there is no existing contract between the site and the State for the provision of such accommodations, while every potential contract would be contingent upon prerequisites.
The complainants, who hailed from different professional backgrounds and areas of residence and who each represented themselves in the High Court lawsuit, stated that they were actively involved in several peaceful protests in Coolock. For their case, they took up the gauntlet against the site leaseholder Townbe Unlimited Company and its directors, Paul Collins and Tanya Hennigan, along with several key authorities, such as the police chief of Coolock, Dublin City Council, the state government and Minister for Integration Roderic O’Gorman, who heads the department managing the international protection accommodation system.
However, all the respondents, legally represented, contended that the injunction sought could not be given. The case is due to reappear in court in early December, at which point, as informed by the court, the respondents will campaign for their legal costs to be covered.