The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of two Malaysian students, Chain Wen Wei and Tang Ting Ting, regarding their refusal of entry to Ireland in December 2020. The appellants alleged that immigration officers incorrectly interpreted Section 4(3)(j) of the Immigration Act 2004, specifically the word 'or', when denying them entry to pursue an online English course during the pandemic. They argued that 'public policy' and 'national security' should be treated as conjunctive concepts, requiring a finding of a real and immediate threat to the State. The High Court and Court of Appeal had previously dismissed their judicial review actions against the Minister for Justice and An Garda Síochána, favoring a disjunctive interpretation. In the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Seamus Wolfe ruled that 'or' is disjunctive, distinguishing 'national security' from the broader concept of 'public policy'. He held that the officers were entitled to refuse entry on public policy grounds under pandemic guidelines for distance learning. The appeal was dismissed by a four-to-one majority, with Mr Justice Hogan dissenting. The matter is concluded with the dismissal of the appeal.
The Supreme Court will decide whether an 'Isaac Wunder' order can be issued in family‑law cases involving child access and maintenance, after a father who has appeared in over 100 court proceedings costing more than €300,000 was barred by the Court of Appeal from filing any further legal action against his former partner without the court's permission. The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision that had withdrawn the father's permission to pursue a judicial review, finding he had made misstatements and failed to disclose relevant information. The father argues his applications were to protect his rights as a father and to maintain his son's access, and that the proceedings were not vexatious. The Supreme Court will examine the legality of such orders, the circumstances under which they may be issued, and whether the Court of Appeal erred in its decision. The case highlights the court's role in managing serial litigants who repeatedly prolong or disrupt proceedings.
The Supreme Court has upheld the Minister for Justice's decision to refuse residency under the Special Scheme to two non-EEA nationals. In a unanimous judgment delivered by Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley, the court ruled that the Minister correctly engaged with all submitted materials, including character references and work history. The respondents, Indian national Sangeeta Rana and Pakistani national Lehrasib Ali, had previously obtained student visas before 2011. After their permissions expired, both acquired residence permits through marriages to non-Irish EU citizens. The Minister revoked these permissions, alleging that Ms Rana entered into a marriage of convenience and that Mr Ali submitted false documents regarding his wife's whereabouts. Although the Court of Appeal had previously quashed the Minister's decision, finding insufficient engagement with the respondents' submissions, the Supreme Court reversed this, stating that a statement indicating all material was considered was sufficient. The court noted that the respondents' actions could be seen as an attack on the integrity of immigration systems. However, the judgment clarified that both individuals have separately been granted permission to remain in Ireland under the Regularisation of Long Term Undocumented Migrants scheme. The court found no inconsistency in failing the good conduct requirement for the Special Scheme while passing it for the regularisation scheme, affirming that the Minister was right to refuse the Special Scheme applications.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Labour Court erred in ordering the reinstatement of Mr Aodhagan Ó Suird as principal of Gaelscoil Moshiolog, a decision made in 2015 after his dismissal. While the Labour Court had found the dismissal unfair, the Supreme Court held that it had not properly considered the exceptional nature of reinstatement and the practical implications for the school. The Court therefore set aside the Labour Court's order and refused to remit the case for a fresh consideration, citing the passage of time and Mr Ó Suird's continued service as principal. It also overturned High Court orders that had awarded him arrears of pay and legal costs, directing those sums to be repaid to the board. The decision was delivered by Chief Justice Donal O'Donnell and a panel of four other judges. The case stemmed from allegations that Mr Ó Suird had inflated enrolment figures and from earlier complaints about his conduct with a student.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Concerned Residents of Treascon and Clondoolusk, who opposed An Bord Pleanala's October 2021 decision to grant planning permission for a solar energy facility operated by Elgin Energy Services Limited on a 90‑hectare site in Portarlington, Co. Offaly. The residents argued that the board's decision was invalid because it contravened EU directives on habitats and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The Court found the substantive issues raised were misconceived or premature, noting that the removal of hedgerows did not trigger a full EIA for the entire project. Justice Brian Murray, joined by Justices Donal O'Donnell, Seamus Woulfe, Maurice Collins and Aileen Donnelly, upheld the board's decision. The High Court had previously rejected the residents' claims, and the Supreme Court's dismissal confirmed that the appeal was not supported by the necessary legal grounds. The case remains a judicial review against An Bord Pleanala and the Attorney General.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Garda Commissioner's appeal against a lower court's refusal to allow a video clip, alleged to contain pornographic material, to be used in a disciplinary investigation against Garda Patrick Hyland. The Court of Appeal had ruled that material obtained under a lawful search warrant could not be used in disciplinary proceedings, reversing an earlier High Court decision that had allowed it. Hyland, who denies wrongdoing, claims he forwarded the clip to a WhatsApp group without viewing it, later realizing it was a clip of a fully clothed male teenager and a female in a potentially suggestive position. The investigation led to a search of Hyland's home, seizure of devices, and a suspension that was later lifted. Hyland sought to prevent further disciplinary action, arguing the use of the material breached his privacy and the 2018 Data Protection Act.
The Supreme Court has been asked to overturn orders that would reinstate Mr Aodhagan Ó Suird as principal of Gaelscoil Moshiolog, following a decade‑old dismissal deemed unfair by the Labour Court and the High Court. Lawyers for the school board argue that the Labour Court erred in finding the dismissal unjust, citing irrelevant considerations and failure to consider relevant matters. They also challenge the High Court's ruling that the board must pay Mr Ó Suird's legal costs on a higher practitioner‑client scale. Mr Ó Suird's counsel rejects these arguments, insisting the orders in his favour should stand. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal on public‑interest grounds, has reserved judgment and will decide as soon as possible. The case centres on alleged misconduct by Mr Ó Suird, including a 2012 incident with a student and accusations of inflated enrolment figures, which the court described as "unfounded" and "unprincipled.".
The Supreme Court will hear Graham Dwyer's appeal against his 2015 conviction for the murder of Elaine O'Hara on January 16. The one-day hearing centres on whether call data records used at trial should lead to a retrial, following declarations that retaining mobile phone data breached rights under the European Charter. Dwyer's lawyers argue the data retention constituted mass surveillance, while the DPP opposes the application. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, citing significant issues of general public importance regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained under a 2011 law later struck down by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In a preliminary hearing before Mr Justice Maurice Collins, the judge confirmed a timetable for legal submissions and asked the DPP and Dwyer's team to inquire if the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission wishes to participate. Dwyer, who denies murdering O'Hara, was originally convicted by a jury at the Central Criminal Court. Mr Justice Tony Hunt sentenced him to the mandatory term of life imprisonment, describing the killing as a chilling and premeditated murder following a protracted campaign of manipulation and abuse. Although the Court of Appeal dismissed his conviction appeal last March, finding the call data evidence did not cause a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court is now reviewing the legal characterisation of the data's illegality and the scope of legislation governing conviction appeals.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Niamh Mulreany (27) and Kirstie McGrath (32), known as the "Dubai Two", who challenge the High Court's refusal to halt their prosecution for refusing mandatory hotel quarantine after returning from the UAE. The women were arrested on 2 April 2021 at Dublin Airport and charged under the 1947 Health Act for breaching quarantine requirements that applied to travellers from the UAE. They argued that the Minister for Health's designation of states for mandatory quarantine breached the separation of powers and was unconstitutional, and that the appeals process for those refusing quarantine was unlawful under Article 37 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court panel, comprising Justices Charleton, Murray and Donnelly, will consider whether the measures violate Article 40.4, the nature of the emergency, the delegation of powers and the constitutionality of the appeals process. No hearing date has been set. The case remains at the Supreme Court stage.
In a 2023 Supreme Court decision, a Dublin man, Keith Connorton, 44, had his appeal against a murder conviction dismissed. Connorton had been found guilty in 2019 of killing 32‑year‑old Graham McKeever on 18 February 2017 after an argument with his partner Claire McGrath. The jury, in a 10‑to‑two verdict, sentenced him to life imprisonment. Connorton's appeal centred on the admissibility of a 999 call made by McGrath, which the trial judge admitted under the "res gestae" exception to the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court panel, in a unanimous decision, upheld the trial judge's ruling, agreeing that the emergency call was properly admitted and that the conviction should stand. No new evidence or outcome was introduced beyond the confirmation of the original verdict.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Unite the Union's appeal against a High Court decision that granted H.A O'Neill Limited an injunction restraining the union and three of its members from carrying or erecting placards or representing a trade dispute. The injunction, issued last March, remains in force pending the full hearing. Unite argues the injunction has wide implications for industrial relations and that the High Court may have overstepped the 1990 Industrial Relations Act. The company claims the proposed industrial action, including picketing, is unlawful and that a valid trade dispute does not exist. The dispute centres on a travel allowance that the company says was incorporated into hourly pay a decade ago, while Unite seeks its restoration. The Supreme Court panel will focus on the nature of the ballot required of union members and whether the lower court correctly applied the law.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that questions whether people who occupy a property after a court order for possession can claim constitutional protection. The case involves about 20 residents who refused to leave two Dublin properties on Richmond Avenue, Fairview, and Little Mary Street for 15 years. They were found in contempt of court by the High Court in 2021, but the Court of Appeal set aside the orders in 2022 because the residents were not properly served with the legal documents. Pepper Finance, which had recovered the properties after the original mortgagor defaulted, appealed the Court of Appeal's decision. The Supreme Court panel will consider issues such as the method of service, the jurisdiction over unknown persons, and whether trespassers can invoke constitutional rights regarding the dwelling. The case also raises questions about the company's standing to appeal and the sale of the underlying loans.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a direct appeal by John O'Meara and his three children against the Minister for Social Protection's refusal to grant them the Widower's Pension. O'Meara's partner, Michelle Batey, died of Covid‑19 in January 2021 after a 20‑year cohabitation. The applicants argued that sections of the 2005 Social Welfare Consolidation Act that exclude non‑married partners from the pension amount to discrimination. The High Court, in a decision by Mr Justice Mark Heslin, rejected the claim, stating that the pension is intended for married spouses or formal civil partners and does not apply to cohabiting couples or children. The Supreme Court panel, comprising Mr Justice Peter Charleton, Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe and Mr Justice Maurice Collins, granted leave to hear the appeal, noting that it raises complex issues of public importance, including the constitutionality of the Act and the purpose of the pension. A hearing date will be set later.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by developer Michael O'Flynn against a ruling that barred him from objecting to a Personal Insolvency Agreement (PIA) entered into by former business partner John O'Driscoll. O'Flynn alleges that O'Driscoll owes him more than €750,000 and that O'Driscoll was not insolvent when the PIA was granted. He claims he advanced a loan to a pub business in which O'Driscoll was involved, and that O'Driscoll became a signatory to a €2.2 million loan guarantee in favour of O'Flynn and a shareholder in the business. O'Driscoll denies the insolvency claim and insists his PIA should remain undisturbed. The High Court had previously ruled that O'Flynn lacked locus standi because he did not file a proof of debt.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a leapfrog appeal in a test case brought by Bridget Delaney against the State and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB). The panel, comprising Justices Charleton, Hogan, and Murray, determined that the matter raises issues of general importance regarding the separation of powers and judicial independence, warranting direct review from the High Court. The appeal challenges the High Court's June dismissal of Delaney's claims that the 2021 personal injuries guidelines are unconstitutional. Delaney alleges the guidelines, adopted by the Judicial Council, encroach on judicial independence and that PIAB breached her rights by assessing her claim under these new rules. She seeks orders quashing the PIAB assessment and the Council's decision, along with declarations that both bodies acted outside their powers. In the lower court, Mr Justice Meenan rejected all grounds, finding PIAB acted in accordance with the 2003 PIAB Act and that Delaney's constitutional rights did not guarantee a specific damages sum. The Supreme Court will now case manage the appeal before fixing a hearing date. The matter remains at the appeal stage and has not been concluded.
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal brought by local residents against a lower court's finding that certain parts of a Co Waterford-based wind farm did not amount to unauthorised development. The decision concerns an 11-turbine wind farm at Ballyduff operated by Barranafaddock Sustainable Electricity Limited, allowing the facility to continue operating. The residents, acting as applicants, claimed under Section 160 of the 2000 Planning and Development Act that the wind farm was unauthorised development, specifically alleging that the developer deviated from planning permission by increasing rotor blade diameter from 90 to 103 meters. While An Bord Pleanala ruled the change was not exempted development, the High Court initially restrained the turbines' use. That decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which found in the operator's favour. The Supreme Court, comprising five judges, upheld the Court of Appeal's findings. Mr Justice Woulfe stated that the increase in rotor blade diameter had been agreed in writing with the planning authority. The court also determined that the applicants were not entitled to challenge the board's act on EU law grounds and that the board's finding did not extend to a determination of unauthorised development. The Supreme Court had agreed to hear the appeal due to issues of general public importance regarding the 2000 Act and Environmental Impact Assessment requirements.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal concerning journalistic privilege and police search powers, marking the first time the court will address the interaction between criminal investigations and protection of journalistic sources. The case arises from the seizure of a mobile phone belonging to a journalist at his home in Strokestown, County Roscommon, in December 2018, as part of a garda investigation into violence at a repossessed property. The High Court had permitted gardai access to the device's contents, but the Court of Appeal subsequently quashed the search warrant, finding that journalistic privilege rights were not adequately considered before it was issued. The Garda Commissioner sought Supreme Court review. A three-judge panel of the Supreme Court determined the case raises important issues of general public importance regarding the balance between criminal investigations and journalistic privilege, and agreed to hear the appeal. A hearing date will be fixed later in the term.
In a 6‑to‑1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters need not pay the State's legal costs for their failed challenge to Covid‑19 legislation. Chief Justice Donal O'Donnell noted that the applicants had not sought personal gain and that the case raised fundamentally important issues, but that the courts had found their arguments lacking sufficient evidence. The Court vacated earlier costs orders made by the High Court and Court of Appeal against the applicants. It also declined to order the State to pay costs incurred by the Dáil, Seanad and Ceann Comhairle, suggesting those parties seek a costs order only for the Court of Appeal proceedings. The decision reaffirmed that expert evidence is not mandatory for a constitutional challenge, but that a plausible evidential basis is required for a claim to succeed. The ruling upheld the lower courts' findings that the applicants' case was not arguable.
The Supreme Court declined to hear Ben Gilroy and his wife Sarah Jane Gilroy's appeal against a possession order granted to Start Mortgages DAC for their Navan home. The Court found no point of general public importance had been raised. The Gilroys had argued that a fraud had occurred involving the lender and a solicitor, and that changes had been made to the mortgage documentation. The Circuit Court rejected these claims, finding them farfetched and unsupported, and the High Court confirmed the absence of evidence for fraud. The Gilroys sought a priority hearing and referral to EU courts, but the Supreme Court held that their due‑process rights had been fully addressed in lower courts and that it could not revisit the earlier findings. The application was dismissed by a panel of three judges, including Mr Justice Peter Charleton, Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe and Mr Justice Brian Murray.
The Supreme Court dismissed Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters' bid to challenge the constitutionality of Covid‑19 pandemic laws. Chief Justice Donal O'Donnell ruled that the applicants failed to present the expert or factual evidence required to show that the regulations were disproportionate or part of a conspiracy to undermine citizens' rights. The Court held that the High Court and Court of Appeal were correct in refusing leave to bring a judicial review. In a 6‑to‑1 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, noting that the applicants had relied on unsubstantiated views and rhetoric rather than evidence. A dissenting judge, Gerard Hogan, argued that the measures' impact on constitutional rights warranted scrutiny, but the majority upheld the lower courts' findings. The decision ends the legal challenge to the Covid‑19 legislation.
Joseph Behan, 46, was convicted by a jury at the Circuit Criminal Court for robbery, attempted robbery, assault causing serious harm, assault causing harm, possession of a firearm and reckless discharging of the firearm after a raid on Mizzoni's Pizza in Raheny on 1 January 2019. He was jailed for 15 years. Behan appealed to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court, arguing that a search warrant issued for his home was unlawful because the Divisional Detective Superintendent who granted it was not independent of the investigation, as required by Section 29(5) of the 1939 Offences Against the State Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the warrant was lawful and that any error made had no practical effect on the conviction. The court split 3‑2 on the statutory interpretation, but all judges agreed that the conviction should stand. The case was decided on 30 May 2022.
The Supreme Court upheld a finding that the 2003 murder conviction of Somali‑born Yusuf Ali Abdi was a miscarriage of justice. Abdi, who had spent 16 years in prison, was found not guilty by reason of insanity at a retrial in 2019 after new psychiatric evidence showed he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the killing of his 20‑month‑old son, Nathan. The Court of Appeal had quashed the original conviction and ordered the retrial, which resulted in an acquittal. The Supreme Court, hearing an appeal from the Director of Public Prosecutions, dismissed the appeal and confirmed that Abdi was entitled to a Section 9 certificate for compensation. The decision clarified the legal test for a miscarriage of justice and the role of insanity in criminal liability. The ruling reaffirmed the earlier judgments of the Central Criminal Court and the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals by Gerry "The Monk" Hutch and former Sinn Féin councillor Jonathan Dowdall, who seek to stop their murder trials for the 2016 Regency Hotel attack from proceeding before the Special Criminal Court (SCC). Earlier this year, High Court Judge Anthony Barr refused their requests, ruling that the Director of Public Prosecutions may certify that the SCC can try them under the 1939 Offences Against the State Act. The appeals raise questions about the SCC's legal authority, its status as a permanent court, and the interpretation of emergency powers. A three‑judge panel, including Justices Peter Charleton, Seamus Woulfe and Gerard Hogan, found the appeals to involve matters of public importance and granted a "leap‑frog" appeal to the Supreme Court. No hearing date has yet been set. The men, aged 58 and 44, are charged with the murder of David Byne, 33, at the Whitehall hotel on 5 February 2016.
The Supreme Court ruled that Liam Campbell, 59, can be extradited to Lithuania where he faces charges of international terrorism, possession of weapons and smuggling. Campbell had opposed the extradition, arguing that no decision had been made in Lithuania to try him. The five‑judge court dismissed his appeal, finding that a decision to charge and try him had indeed been taken in Lithuania under the 2003 European Arrest Warrant Act. The court noted that the Lithuanian authorities had sufficient evidence and that only a procedural step remained before a formal charge. The decision means Campbell is expected to be surrendered to Lithuania in the coming days, where he will be tried for the alleged offences. The ruling confirms that the extradition request meets the legal requirements for EU member states.
The Supreme Court has agreed to directly hear an appeal by the Save Cork City Community Association CLG (SCCCA) against the High Court's refusal to overturn An Bord Pleanála's permission for flood relief works in Cork city. Last year, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys found that the SCCCA had not made out grounds for an order quashing the permission granted to Cork City Council for the works. He also ruled that the group is not entitled to a stay on the works being carried out. In his judgement, the judge found that the group was entitled to a declaration that the council did not comply with public participation obligations under the planning acts to ensure members of the public could inspect or purchase a Natura Impact Statement concerning the works. The group applied to the Supreme Court for a direct or 'leapfrog' hearing of its appeal against the High Court's decision. It also claimed that the case raises an important issue concerning Environmental Impact Assessment screening. In a determination, a Supreme Court panel comprised of Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said that exceptional circumstances of public importance exist in this case which required the appeal to be determined by the court. In its action, the group challenged the board's decision of June 17, 2020 to grand permission for remedial works to the existing quay walls in Cork city and construction of improvement works and flood defence works between Parliament Bridge and Parnell Bridge along Morrison's Quay and Fr Matthew Quay, and a short section along Union Quay close to Trinity footbridge at Morrison's Island. The group alleges the permission involved impermissible "project splitting" within the meaning of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive of the Lower Lee Flood Relief Scheme (LLFRS), the overall flood relief scheme for the city. Its concern was that part of a project for the purposes of the directive may now be given consent without the project as a whole being made subject to an EIA. The case was taken against the Board, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the State. In its decision granting a leapfrog appeal, the Supreme Court accepted that the group had raised a point of general, public importance that requires a determination by it. The issue raised relates to whether the power to conduct an EIA screening can be implied in the relevant section of the 2000 Planning and Development Act, particularly where it is said that there is no provision for such a procedure when an EIA report is required. The group argues that the High Court decision has profound implications for legal certainty in local authority development, not least because the relevant law does not specify what should happen if Environmental Impact Assessment is required. The Supreme Court said it would not hear arguments in relation to the second point raised by the group, as to whether the High Court applied an incorrect test of "practical interpretation" to the concept of project splitting under the EIA Directive. That point had been dealt with in another case ruled on by the Supreme Court, the three-judge panel determined. The Supreme Court will fix a date for the hearing of the appeal at a later stage.
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by alleged drug dealer John McCormack against a Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) order that several Mid‑West properties were bought with proceeds of crime. The High Court had found that evidence showed McCormack had been involved in serious criminal activity for many years and that the income from that activity likely funded the purchase of the properties at Purcell Park, Cloontra West and Claughan Fort. In 2020 Mr Justice Alexander Owens made orders restraining McCormack and others from dealing with the properties. McCormack appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the findings, and then sought a Supreme Court appeal on the grounds that the case involved matters of general public importance. The Supreme Court, in a written decision, held that McCormack had not established any such issue and that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the appeal.
In March 2022 the Supreme Court reserved judgment on an appeal by Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters, who challenged the constitutionality of Covid‑19 measures. The appeal contests a High Court decision, upheld by the Court of Appeal, that denied them leave to bring a judicial review, citing the case as "misconceived and entirely without merit". The Supreme Court will decide whether leave should have been granted despite the applicants' failure to present evidential reports on proportionality and rights impact. The applicants seek declarations that several Covid‑related acts and orders are flawed and unconstitutional, arguing that the measures breached constitutional and ECHR rights, were disproportionate, and created a regime akin to martial law. The State, represented by Michael Collins SC and Patrick McCann SC, argues the lower courts were correct in dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for its decision.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a claim that parts of an 11‑turbine wind farm at Ballyduff, operated by Barranafaddock Sustainable Electricity Limited, were built without proper authorisation, making them an unauthorised development. Local residents argue that the wind farm should be shut down because the turbines exceed the dimensions approved in the 2011 planning permission. The operator had originally applied for turbines with a 90‑metre rotor blade diameter, but in 2013 consultants submitted a change to increase the diameter to 103 metres, while the tip heights remained as in the 2011 permission. The council's response was a letter stating "noted and agreed" without explicit approval of the diameter increase. The turbines were built and became operational in 2015. Residents brought High Court proceedings, and Mr Justice Garrett Simons ordered a restraint on the turbines that were not authorised. The operator appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ruled in its favour.
The Supreme Court dismissed Petronel Pal's appeal, allowing his extradition to Romania for an alleged murder in Ireland and for organising a crime group. Pal, 36, was arrested in Dublin and faces charges for a 2014 murder at Academy Square, Navan, and for creating an organised crime group. The Court found no legal barrier under the 2003 European Extradition Warrant Act, rejecting Pal's argument that Section 44 precluded his surrender. The Court compared the case to France's request for Ian Bailey, noting that the issue was nationality, not the nature of the offence. The Court upheld the High Court's order, confirming Pal's extradition to Romania for prosecution. The decision was unanimous by five judges, including Chief Justice Donal O'Donnell. The extradition order remains in effect.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by the Hellfire Massy Residents Association (HMRA) against the High Court's decision to uphold planning permission for a €15 million visitor centre at the Hell Fire club in the Dublin mountains. The HMRA challenged An Bord Pleanala's approval of the development at Massy's Wood estate and Montpelier Hill, arguing that the project would act as a visitor hub for the Dublin and Wicklow mountains and would alter the type, intensity, mix and balance of visitors to Montpelier Hill, Natura 2000 sites and Massy's wood. They claimed the board failed to assess impacts on natural habitats, bats and otters. In the High Court, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the challenge, stating the HMRA had not established that the grant of permission was invalid and that the board had acted unlawfully in using flawed visitor figures.
The Supreme Court has referred a legal issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in an appeal brought by Naoufal Fassih, a Dutch national currently serving an 18-year prison sentence in the Netherlands for convictions including attempted murder. Fassih was extradited from Ireland to the Netherlands in 2017 under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by Amsterdam public prosecutors. He is challenging a request by Dutch authorities for Irish consent to his further prosecution on charges not included in the original EAW. The Minister for Justice opposes this action. The High Court and Court of Appeal previously ruled that Fassih could not raise this argument, as the legal issue was deemed decided in the prior surrender order. In a unanimous decision, the five-judge Supreme Court, led by Ms Justice O'Malley, determined that the complex relationship between the surrender order and subsequent consent requests involves autonomous EU law concepts requiring CJEU clarification. The Court asked whether a final surrender decision determines further consent requests and if national procedural rules preventing reliance on post-surrender CJEU judgments breach EU effectiveness principles. The Supreme Court also proposed an expedited hearing. The matter was adjourned pending the CJEU's determination.
The Supreme Court quashed the conviction of Vincent Banks, a Dublin man in his early 50s, for being a member of the Irish Republican Army. The Court held that Banks' December 2012 arrest, made on suspicion of membership in an illegal organisation, was unlawful because it lacked a warrant required by the 1939 Offences Against the State Act. It also found that the prosecution's evidence was not strong enough to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Banks had previously been arrested in September 2012 on the same suspicion but released without charge. The Special Criminal Court had convicted him in 2017 and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, allowed Banks' appeal and quashed the conviction, noting that the evidence presented did not meet the required standard of proof.
The Supreme Court has refused to order the extradition of Slawomir Wiktur Palonka, a 41-year-old Polish national residing in Ireland, to serve a prison sentence for drug offences committed in 1999 and 2003. The five-judge panel, including Mr Justice Peter Charleton and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, rejected the appeal against the High Court's decision, citing exceptional delays and procedural confusion by Polish authorities. Mr Palonka was convicted of importing cannabis and received suspended sentences, which a Polish appeal court lifted in 2006, resulting in a ten-month custodial sentence. The court found that the 23-year delay between the offences and the extradition request was inordinate and oppressive to his family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Justice Hogan noted that Poland lacks a central authority for European Arrest Warrant matters, leading to disjointed requests and human errors. The court concluded that the delay prejudiced justice and that surrender must be refused, as the Polish authorities failed to provide adequate explanations for the inordinate lapse in time.
The Supreme Court dismissed former solicitor John Tobin's appeal against his adjudged bankruptcy, which stemmed from €405,808 in secured judgments by the Revenue Commissioners. In its decision, the five‑judge Court held that an overstatement of debt must lead to dismissal of a bankruptcy summons if the debtor can show the overstatement is real and substantial. The court ruled that the summons must be dismissed even when the undisputed portion exceeds the €20,000 threshold. Mr Tobin had appealed a High Court refusal to dismiss a 2016 bankruptcy summons served under the 1988 Bankruptcy Act and the subsequent adjudication of him bankrupt. He claimed the sum sought was incorrect because he was due a €71,030 refund from Revenue for alleged overpayment of stamp duty. The Supreme Court found no basis for allowing the appeal, noting that Mr Tobin's application to dismiss the summons was out of time and that the debt overstatement did not justify dismissal.
In a 2022 Supreme Court decision, a mandatory interlocutory injunction that had forced the McDonagh family and their relatives to vacate council-owned land at Cahercallamore, Ennis, was struck down. The injunction, originally granted by the High Court in 2019 and upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2020, had required Bernard and Helen McDonagh to leave the land immediately pending a full hearing. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, ruled that the injunction was not justified. The court noted that the McDonaghs had lived in the area since 1998, first at a traveller development called Ashline, then in rented accommodation, and finally moved their caravans onto the disputed land in 2017. The council had claimed unlawful occupation and unauthorized development, citing the 2000 Planning and Development Act. The court highlighted the vulnerability of the Irish Traveller community and the need to balance planning law with cultural rights, concluding that the injunction was disproportionate and should not be enforced.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by Green Party TD Patrick Costello challenging the constitutionality of the EU‑Canada CETA trade deal. Costello's challenge was dismissed by the High Court, where Justice Nuala Butler found no clear constitutional breach. He sought a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, which the Court accepted, citing the significant issues of state sovereignty and the administration of justice. The Court will hear the case as a priority hearing and noted that the case could have legal impacts across several sectors. Costello also argued that the case should be referred to the EU Court of Justice, a contention the State parties rejected. The Supreme Court will decide the case directly, with the costs issue to be addressed at the conclusion of the appeal. The summary is 119 words.
The Supreme Court overturned a Labour Court ruling that a worker's personal complaint to his former employer was not a protected disclosure. The case involved Tibor Baranya, a Hungarian national who worked as a butcher for Rosderra Meats Group Ltd. After leaving in 2015, he returned and requested a different role due to pain. He claimed dismissal on the basis of a protected disclosure under Section 5 of the 2014 Protected Disclosures Act, while Rosderra argued he was dismissed for walking off a production line. The Labour Court and Workplace Relations Commission had classified his communication as a grievance, not a protected disclosure, and the High Court dismissed his claim. The Supreme Court held that the 2014 Act covers personal complaints in private employment and that the Labour Court erred by relying on a 2015 Code of Practice that misstates the law. The case was remitted for a fresh hearing.
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge by a man accused of diesel laundering who sought to overturn a Circuit Court Judge's refusal to recuse himself from hearing the man's retrial. The Court held that no binding legal principle requires a judge to recuse himself after an inconclusive trial in which the judge ruled on contested evidence in a preliminary application. The five‑judge panel, including Chief Justice O'Donnell and Justices Dunne, Charleton, O'Malley and Woulfe, unanimously dismissed the appeal. The man had been tried on two diesel‑laundering charges; his lawyers partially succeeded in having some prosecution evidence deemed inadmissible, but the jury could not reach a verdict, leading to a retrial. He argued that the judge's earlier rulings on the admissibility and credibility of witnesses could bias the retrial, but the Court found that such past errors do not establish bias for a future trial.
The Supreme Court has granted declarations to an unnamed woman, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity of violent crimes, regarding the handling of her bid to vary living arrangements during conditional release from the Central Mental Hospital (CMH). The Court overturned lower court decisions, holding that the CMH's Clinical Director was wrong to refuse arrangements to facilitate a variation directed by the Mental Health Review Board. The Court declared that the Director failed to perform a statutory duty and that the Review Board's decision, which balances clinical decisions, patient rights, and public interest, must be put into effect. The Court noted the Director acted in the woman's best interests but that the role of determining how interests are protected lies with the Review Board. The woman, who is now unconditionally released and resides with her family, was not found to be entitled to damages for breach of her constitutional rights. However, the matter was adjourned to a later date to determine whether she is entitled to damages under the ECHR Act. The appeal was heard by a panel including Chief Justice Frank Clarke and Ms Justice Marie Baker, who delivered the judgment.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Boyles' appeal against the High Court's decision to appoint a receiver over a Dublin house at Casement Drive, deemed to be proceeds of crime. The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) had applied in 2019, and the High Court found the house and other assets, including cash, were beneficially owned by alleged drug trafficker Jason Boyle, though registered in his parents' names to conceal his involvement. The Boyles denied the claims and argued the property was purchased for €70,000 in 2013 with a €60,000 loan from Mrs Boyle's father. CAB had secured freezing orders in 2016 and claimed the house, worth about €250,000, was used by Boyle and had been extensively renovated. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Boyles' appeal in January, and the Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, found no grounds to hear the appeal, citing sufficient evidence regarding the property's insurance status to justify the receiver's appointment.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a man, whose identity is withheld for legal reasons, who had been deported to Jordan in 2016 on security grounds linked to alleged involvement with ISIL, ISIS, Daesh or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. He had previously sought to set aside the deportation order, compel the Minister to accept his asylum application, and claim that he did not need the Minister's consent to apply under the 1996 Refugee Act. The High Court in 2016 dismissed his challenge to the deportation and the Minister's refusal to consider his asylum application in 2015. The Court of Appeal upheld those decisions in 2018. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal on Tuesday, ruled that the man's arguments constituted an impermissible collateral attack on earlier procedural steps and that the appeal was dismissed, leaving the lower courts' decisions intact.
In a 2019 Supreme Court decision, the appeal of Sundogs Rock Productions Ltd was dismissed. The company had challenged a 2011 High Court ruling that found its director, Francesca De Cataldo, had "grossly overcharged" solicitor Val Timon for services related to apartments he owned in Dublin and France. The High Court judge, John Hedigan, described De Cataldo as having acted in a reprehensible manner, forged documents, and attempted to intimidate a witness. He noted that the company, set up to develop a music band, was not intended to provide interior design or property management services. Timon's lawyers denied any debt and claimed the claim was mischievous. The Supreme Court, with Justices McKechnie, O'Malley and McGovern, found no error in the High Court's decision and ordered costs in favour of Timon.
The Supreme Court, by a unanimous vote of five judges, dismissed Eric Eoin Marques's appeal and lifted the stay on his extradition to the United States. Marques, an Irish citizen in his early thirties, has been in custody since August 2013 after refusing bail. He faces U.S. charges of conspiring to distribute and advertise child pornography and of advertising and distributing child pornography, with the FBI alleging he owned and ran the anonymous hosting site Freedom Hosting. His appeal argued that the Minister for Justice had no obligation to obtain reasons from the Director of Public Prosecutions for not prosecuting him in Ireland, and that the Minister's reasons for extradition were adequate. The court held that under the 1965 Extradition Act the Minister may refuse extradition without seeking such reasons, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The decision ends Marques's long legal battle and allows his surrender to U.S. authorities.
The Supreme Court of Ireland has dismissed Gary Davis's appeal and cleared the way for his extradition to the United States. Davis, who lives in Wicklow, is alleged to have been an administrator of the Silk Road website, which sold illegal drugs and hacking software. He faces US charges of conspiracy to distribute narcotics, conspiracy to commit computer hacking and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and could receive a life sentence if convicted. Davis argued that his Asperger's Syndrome and mental health would be at risk if extradited, but the court found no real risk of degrading treatment and held that the state must protect all persons in extradition cases. The High Court had ordered his extradition in 2016, and his 2017 appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court granted a 48‑hour stay to allow his lawyers to advise him and consider a referral to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Minister for Justice must reconsider a decision to deport an unnamed Algerian man with alleged links to Islamic terrorism. The State claimed the man, who is in his 50s, was convicted of terrorism offences in Algeria and France. The Minister issued a deportation order after gardaí informed the Department of Justice that the man's activities were of serious concern. The man, represented by Michael Lynn SC and David Leonard Bl, denies involvement in terrorism and claims he faces a risk of torture in Algeria. He appealed a High Court order which found the Minister's decision lawful. In its judgment, a five-judge Supreme Court unanimously quashed the Minister's refusal to revoke the deportation order and remitted the case for further reconsideration. Mr Justice Donal O'Donnell stated there was no reasonable basis for the Minister to conclude there was no real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court noted the Minister's finding contrasted with an earlier Refugee Appeals Tribunal finding that the man was at risk. The judge directed that the fresh consideration should occur promptly, with focused submissions on the risk of ill-treatment. The man remains in detention pending the outcome. During the 1990s, he was convicted of several offences in Algeria, receiving three life sentences and two death sentences. He was also convicted and jailed for eight years following his arrest in France in 2002, where a French court found him guilty of membership of a criminal organisation preparing an act of terrorism.
The Supreme Court has reserved its decision in an appeal by Gary Davis, a 29-year-old man from Co. Wicklow, against an order for his extradition to the United States. US authorities allege Davis was an administrator of the Silk Road website under the pseudonym 'Libertas' between June and October 2013. He is wanted to face trial on charges including conspiracy to distribute narcotics, conspiracy to commit computer hacking, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The High Court ordered his extradition last year, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in March. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on grounds of public importance. Davis, represented by Cormac Ó Dúlacháin SC and John Peart SC, argues that extradition would breach his constitutional and European Convention on Human Rights rights to bodily integrity and life. He claims he suffers from Asperger's Syndrome and that detention in the US would be inhumane, potentially leading to suicidal ideation and severe mental health deterioration due to limited family access. The Attorney General, represented by Remy Farrell SC, argued there is nothing to prevent extradition. The five-judge panel, comprising Justices O'Donnell, McKechnie, MacMenamin, Dunne, and O'Malley, heard submissions on Tuesday and reserved its judgment. Davis remains on bail pending the Supreme Court's decision.
The Charleton Tribunal, inquiring into claims that sexual abuse allegations were used to smear Sgt Maurice McCabe, heard evidence from Sgt Tony Byrne on day ten. Sgt Byrne stated he never experienced malevolence or malice towards Sgt McCabe during his time in Baileboro. The tribunal also heard from social worker Briege Tinnelly, who testified that she recorded details regarding Ms D in August 2013 and was not informed of a subsequent error in a written report until it was reported in 2017. Dr Gerard O'Neill, HSE Southeast director of counselling, confirmed that a file containing erroneous allegations was received in May 2014, corrected by month's end, and the incorrect file was shredded. The tribunal is examining the creation and distribution of files by Tusla and the HSE containing false allegations against the sergeant. Mr Justice Charleton ruled that Ms D and her family's evidence next week would be held in private, with their identities protected and media excluded. He noted that while secret courts are generally undesirable, exceptional circumstances permit reporting restrictions. The judge also directed the tribunal administrator to determine bona fide press membership. The hearing remains ongoing, with further evidence scheduled for next week.
The Supreme Court has reserved its decision in an appeal by an unnamed Algerian man against his deportation from Ireland. The man, who remains in custody, claims he is innocent of terrorism and at risk of torture in Algeria, arguing this would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He challenges a High Court decision that upheld the Minister for Justice's deportation order, which was issued on security grounds. The State contends the Minister was entitled to make an independent decision, despite a Refugee Appeals Tribunal finding the man at risk. The five-judge panel, led by Chief Justice Susan Denham, heard submissions from Michael Lynn SC for the appellant and Remy Farrell SC for the State. The court will deliver its judgment before the end of July, with one week's notice to parties. The man was previously convicted of terrorism offences in Algeria, receiving three life sentences and two death sentences, and was jailed for eight years in France in 2002 for membership of a criminal organisation preparing an act of terrorism. He denies involvement in groups like Al-Qaeda, stating he was only a supporter of the banned Islamic Salvation Front.
The Supreme Court has provisionally scheduled May 31st for the hearing of an appeal by an unnamed man in his 50s against his deportation from Ireland. The matter was adjourned for a mention in two weeks to determine if the appeal can proceed on that date. The appellant, who denies terrorism links and claims risk based on political views, was convicted and jailed in France for several years for terrorist offences. He also served a prison sentence in Ireland for attempting to travel using forged documents. The State alleges his activities are contrary to security, claiming he raised money for jihadists and was convicted of terrorism offences in his home country. Last month, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys in the High Court dismissed the man's bid to overturn the Minister for Justice's deportation decision, finding the Minister's assessment of risk lawful. The Supreme Court granted permission to appeal on grounds of general public importance and imposed a stay on deportation pending the outcome, citing the appellant's claim of risk under Article 3 of the European Convention. Mr Justice Donal O'Donell asked both parties to coordinate submissions to ensure readiness for the May 31st hearing, warning the case will not proceed if they are not prepared.
The Supreme Court has halted the deportation of an unnamed man in his 50s, who is alleged to have links to Islamic terrorism, pending the determination of his appeal. The three-judge panel, comprising Mr Justice Donal O'Donnell, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, and Mr Justice Peter Charleton, granted leave to appeal on grounds of general public importance. The court placed a stay on the deportation, citing the appellant's claim under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights that he faces a risk of torture or inhuman treatment if removed. This stay is conditional on the man undertaking not to challenge his current detention at an Irish prison, a condition his legal team agreed to. The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, denies involvement in terrorism, attributing his risk to his political views. However, the State alleges he raised money for jihadists and notes that he was convicted and jailed in France for several years for terrorist offences. The appeal challenges a High Court judgment by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys, who had previously dismissed the man's challenge to the deportation order and refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court will hear the appeal after the Easter vacation. The Minister for Justice opposed the stay on national security grounds, but the court prioritized the appellant's human rights claims.