The High Court has refused Michelle Keane’s application for an interim injunction to stop the Government and Attorney General from preventing the EU Migration and Asylum Bill from passing through the Houses of the Oireachtas. Mr Justice Nolan said the court had no power to interfere with the Oireachtas’s legislative work.
Keane sought the injunction so the public could vote on the measure by referendum. In her submissions, she argued that the bill’s asylum and migration management regulations would undermine Ireland’s sovereignty by allowing the European Commission to determine how many relocated asylum seekers Ireland must receive and the minimum financial contribution per asylum seeker.
She also raised concerns about deportations, housing, hospitals and security. The judgment records that she referred to an alleged increase in rape and crime in Co Kerry and implied undocumented migrants might be responsible. The judge said there was no evidence supporting that contention and rejected it.
State counsel, Mr Fennelly BL, argued that the application sought interim relief without substantive relief and was directed at State bodies that could not stop the Oireachtas from carrying out its work. He also relied on Supreme Court decisions concerning separation of powers and the constitutional process for exercising Ireland’s options under Protocol No. 21. The Seanad had passed the legislation, while consideration in the Dáil was pending that evening.
Keane said the substantive relief she wanted was a referendum and asked the court to stop the legislation proceeding on her behalf. She relied on the Constitution’s provisions that government powers derive from the people.
The judge noted that these were her second set of proceedings: she had issued the first on 16 June 2024 without seeking an injunction. He said issuing a separate set of proceedings for the injunction appeared procedurally impermissible and potentially an abuse of process, though the State had not made a major issue of that point. He also noted there was no undertaking as to damages, which he said was required for an injunction.
The court found no legal basis in the application for claiming the legislation would breach the Constitution. Although the judge said he was prepared to overlook deficiencies to a limited extent because Keane was a personal litigant, he said they could prove fatal at a full hearing. His decision was that the High Court could not make the requested order without interfering with the legislative process. He refused the injunction; the judgment does not determine the bill’s constitutionality on a full hearing.