The High Court refused John Rooney’s applications for leave to cross-examine two State witnesses on affidavits concerning his long-running litigation over the bovine tuberculosis reactor grants scheme.
In a judgment delivered on 16 December 2016, Mr Justice Eagar said the proposed questioning concerned issues of law and the interpretation of earlier court decisions, rather than material conflicts of fact. He exercised the court’s discretion to refuse leave to cross-examine Donough McGuinness and Rachel Ward.
Rooney had sought leave to question McGuinness about an affidavit filed in June 2016 and Ward about affidavits filed in November 2015 and February 2016. The applications were brought on 7 October 2016 in proceedings involving a State application to dismiss the cases. The judgment records that McGuinness acted for certain defendants and that Ward was a solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor’s Office acting for the defendants.
Rooney’s affidavits said the State witnesses were asserting that substantial issues in his proceedings had already been dealt with consistently with the Constitution. He argued that cross-examination was fair and just, citing constitutional and human rights provisions. His underlying challenge included an argument that the non-statutory reactor grants scheme was incompatible with Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution and the Disease of Animals Act 1966. These were Rooney’s contentions, not findings made in this judgment.
For the defendants, counsel argued that cross-examination is for disputed facts, whereas the matters raised concerned legal arguments and interpretations of superior court judgments. The judge reviewed the applicable principles, including that leave on an interlocutory application is discretionary and is generally granted where a conflict of fact must be resolved to determine the proceedings. He also noted that delay may be considered.
Eagar said the proposed questioning did not identify disputed facts requiring resolution. He noted the proceedings had begun in 1987 and had been before the Supreme Court twice and the High Court several times on the same basis.
The ruling decides only the applications for leave to cross-examine the two affidavit deponents. The judgment does not determine the State’s application to dismiss the underlying proceedings; it records that application as being pursued by the defendants.