The High Court has asked the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) for more information before it decides whether the body may assist in a judicial review concerning the human rights of juveniles detained at Oberstown.
In a judgment delivered on 9 December 2016, Mr Justice Eagar considered IHREC’s application for permission to appear as amicus curiae, or friend of the court. The application was made under section 10(2)(e) of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Act 2014.
The judge said the proceedings raised significant issues involving juveniles’ human rights and could have implications for the administration of children’s detention centres in Ireland. He noted that one disputed issue, as described in the statement of opposition, was whether the Prison Rules 2007 or Part 10 of the Children Act 2001 governed the administration of Oberstown. That issue was not decided in this judgment.
IHREC said in affidavit evidence that it could offer a human rights perspective, would avoid unnecessary duplication and factual disputes, follow the court’s directions, and bear its own costs. Its Chief Commissioner, Emily Logan, also referred to constitutional and international human rights provisions and rules concerning juvenile offenders and prisoners.
The respondents’ counsel did not clearly state whether the application was opposed or consented to. He addressed the principles relevant to granting amicus status and submitted that the court was being asked to decide on an uninformed basis because little information had been provided about IHREC’s reasons and proposed contribution.
Justice Eagar agreed that the affidavit lacked clarity about IHREC’s intended role. The court was not satisfied that the material showed what new perspective or expertise the commission would add, how it would assist, or how it would remain neutral in a case at trial level. The judge said the application required particular detail because the case was still at trial stage and could involve disputed facts.
The judgment did not determine the amicus application or the underlying judicial review. Instead, the court identified information that would assist it in deciding the application: the precise role IHREC proposed to take, including whether it would make oral or legal submissions; further detail about its relevant expertise; information about contact with the parties and steps to avoid duplicated submissions and costs; and more explanation of the commission’s decision-making process.
No final order granting IHREC permission to appear is recorded in the judgment.