The Supreme Court held that the State unreasonably delayed publishing an Irish translation of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2018, and that certain statutory instruments amending Acts of the Oireachtas must also be translated. It rejected a general constitutional duty to translate other statutory instruments.
The case arose from a challenge by Glann Mór Céibh Teoranta, Glann Mór Cuan Teoranta and Siobhán Denvir-Bairéad to a compulsory purchase order concerning lands at Sruffaun Pier, Carreroe, County Galway. An Bord Pleanála had decided to hold an oral hearing and that it would be conducted in Irish, as the development was within the Gaeltacht. The applicants said Irish translations of relevant legislation were needed to prepare for and participate effectively in the hearing.
The High Court had declared that the State had a constitutional obligation to translate the 2018 Act and specified statutory instruments. It found the delay in translating the Act unreasonable and ordered translations of certain instruments within a reasonable period. The State appealed.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Hogan J. on 1 November 2022, upheld the finding that delay in translating the 2018 Act was unreasonable. The President signed the Act on 19 July 2018; its Irish translation became available on the Oireachtas website on 13 April 2020. Hogan J. said the State had a constitutional duty to translate Acts as soon as possible, while the reasonableness of delay in other cases would depend on the circumstances and any explanation offered. Because the applicants had the translation, the Court found no need for further relief on that issue.
The Court also held that statutory instruments made under section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 must be translated insofar as they amend Acts of the Oireachtas. It reasoned that those instruments alter the State’s primary law, which must be available in both official languages. The judgment did not extend that obligation to parts of the instruments that do not amend primary law.
The Court rejected a general duty to translate the other instruments in the case. It found no appreciable prejudice from their absence in Irish and distinguished the case from rules of court, where translation is tied to access to justice. It said exceptional cases may arise, but the instruments at issue were not intrinsically bound up with the administration of justice or access to courts.
The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal in part: it retained the findings on the 2018 Act and qualifying section 3 instruments, but overturned the order requiring translation of the other listed instruments. It also said that, without clear and compelling evidence of prejudice, failure to provide translations does not by itself justify further relief such as stopping the oral hearing.