A High Court judge found that an application aimed at delaying the Dáil and Seanad’s vote on aspects of the EU migration and asylum protocol pending a referendum, was not suitably filed. The judge noted that the appeal, led by Una McGurk SC, would have to be re-issued, suggesting that the case is not likely to reappear in court in the immediate future.
The EU migration pact, which encompasses enhanced screenings and expedited asylum application processing, is presently being examined by the Oireachtas Houses. Ms McGurk’s appeal wishes to defer any voting on these EU measures in the Oireachtas houses until a public referendum can determine the constitutionality of such relinquishing of authority.
This case is directed towards the clerks of the Dáil and the Seanad, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General, who all maintain that the appeal is baseless and has no chance of success.
Although Mr Justice David Nolan initially granted permission for the injunction application to return to court last Friday, he later determined that the injunction appeal had not been appropriately filed. He put this down to an error not of the Court Service or necessarily Ms McGurk. The judge then gave the go-ahead for the case to be filed once again “in the usual manner”, which means that the Court Service will determine a future court date for the case.
The defendants argued that the case was not within the court’s jurisdiction and had not been suitably presented before them. They were collectively of the view that the matter, which they intended to contest, was not pressing and should not be listed before the courts next week. It was labelled “completely without substance” and “obviously non-justiciable” by Aoife Carroll BL, representing the Dáil and Seanad clerks.
The solicitor argued that the case against her clients, whom, according to her, should not have been enlisted as defendants due to their capacities, was ineffective because the voting process regarding the matter had already occurred. David Fennelly BL, state respondents’ representative, claimed that the plea for mandates against the Oireachtas was improbable to ever win approval from the court. The state’s legal representative also denied allegations that the Oireachtas’ deliberations on security and justice issues equated to an unreasonable violation of Ireland’s independence.