The High Court has dismissed Michael Kavanagh’s challenge to decisions to build a prison and relocate the Central Mental Hospital (CMH) to Thornton Hall, finding that his case was brought too late and rejecting his arguments under EU environmental directives.
Mr Justice T.C. Smyth said the court could dismiss the claim on delay alone. Mr Kavanagh knew by January 2005 that Thornton Hall had been selected for a new prison, but issued proceedings in February 2007. The judge found the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, with no sufficient explanation. He nevertheless considered the legal issues before dismissing the case in its entirety.
Mr Kavanagh argued that decisions made from 2004 onwards, including the selection of Thornton Hall and the later decision to relocate the CMH there, amounted to a plan or programme requiring strategic environmental assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC. He also argued that environmental impact assessment was required under Directive 85/337/EEC before decisions were made or preliminary work carried out.
The judge found that the decisions were separate policy or project decisions and did not set a framework for future development consent as required by the first directive. He also found that the 2007 National Development Plan was a financial and budgetary plan, not a framework for granting project consent, and was excluded from assessment under that directive.
The court found that preliminary work at the site—including tree planting, archaeological investigations and trial holes—had taken place, but no prison security fencing had been installed and no final prison design was ready. The judge held that the prison would require an environmental impact assessment under Part 4 of the Prisons Act 2007, followed by public submissions and approval through the Oireachtas process before construction could proceed. The court rejected the contention that the earlier decisions had already granted development consent.
The CMH proposal was treated separately. The judge said it remained subject to the ordinary planning process, with planning permission to be sought once a proposal was developed. He declined to refer questions to the European Court of Justice and dismissed the case in its entirety. The judgment did not grant permission to build either development.