The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal in part in a dispute over Irish translations of legislation relevant to a planned oral hearing about a compulsory purchase order at Céibh an tSrutháin, An Cheathrú Rua, County Galway.
Glann Mór Céibh Teoranta, Glann Mór Cuan Teoranta and Siobhán Denvir-Bairéad had challenged Irish Water’s proposed compulsory purchase of land. The Planning Board had decided to hold an oral hearing in Irish under section 135(8)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The applicants sought official Irish versions of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2018 and statutory instruments they said were needed to prepare for and participate effectively in the hearing.
The High Court found that the State had unreasonably delayed publishing an Irish translation of the 2018 Act, and ordered translations of listed statutory instruments within a reasonable time. The State appealed. The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Justice Ó hÓgáin on 1 November 2022, considered three categories of legislation.
The Court upheld the finding that the delay in translating the 2018 Act was excessive and unreasonable. The Act was signed on 19 July 2018; its Irish translation became available on the Oireachtas website on 13 April 2020. The Court said the State has a constitutional duty to provide translations of Acts of the Oireachtas as soon as possible, while whether a delay is permissible depends on the circumstances. Because the translation was now available, it found no need to consider further relief on that issue.
The Court also upheld a duty to translate statutory instruments made under section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 where they amend Acts of the Oireachtas and thereby amend primary law. It reasoned that the constitutional requirement for primary law to be available in both official languages applies to such instruments. However, the failure to translate them in time did not, by itself, justify additional relief such as an injunction preventing the planned hearing; the judgment referred to the need for clear and compelling evidence of prejudice for such relief.
The Court rejected the High Court’s finding of a duty to translate the other listed statutory instruments, which related to compulsory purchase procedures but did not amend primary law. It held that there is no general constitutional duty to translate statutory instruments. It also said the special duty recognised for court rules, in connection with access to justice, did not extend to the instruments at issue here. The judgment noted that no significant disadvantage from the missing translations had been shown, including for the third respondent or her legal advisers.
The appeal was therefore allowed to the extent that the High Court had ordered translation of the other listed instruments. The decision leaves intact the findings concerning the 2018 Act and qualifying EU-related instruments, while limiting the translation duty for statutory instruments to those that amend primary law under the 1972 Act.