The Supreme Court has held that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development had no power under the Animal Remedies Act 1993 to amend regulations made under that Act when those regulations had statutory effect.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J on 29 March 2007, addressed a legal issue arising in three appeals brought by Seamus Quinn, Darragh Quinn and Neil Tector against Ireland, the Attorney General and the Minister. The Court had allowed the parties to make submissions on the issue after it was left undecided in an earlier judgment.
The question was whether regulations made under section 8 of the 1993 Act could be changed by further regulations under that section, or only by an Act of the Oireachtas. The applicants argued that the 1993 Act did not expressly give the Minister power to amend regulations with statutory effect. The State argued that the power to make regulations included the power to repeal, amend or replace earlier regulations made under the same section, relying in part on the Interpretation Act 1937.
The issue arose against the background of District Court prosecutions concerning animal remedies regulations. The judgment quoted a complaint against Seamus Quinn alleging that, on 28 March 2003, he possessed, sold or supplied a specified animal remedy in breach of regulations as amended in 1998 and 2002. The Supreme Court did not determine those prosecutions in this judgment.
Denham J concluded that section 8(3) of the 1993 Act gave relevant regulations made to implement European Community acts the statutory effect provided for by section 4 of the European Communities Act 1972. The judgment treated that status as equivalent to that of an Act for the purpose of amendment. It distinguished those regulations from ordinary statutory regulations and held that the general power to amend regulations in the 1937 Interpretation Act did not extend to regulations with statutory effect.
The Court said the 1972 Act expressly authorised ministers to make regulations that amended other law, but the 1993 Act contained no equivalent express power. Denham J held that such a power could not be inferred without an express and constitutionally valid basis.
The Court allowed the appeal on this issue. It invited counsel, after considering the judgment, to address it on the effect of the determination on the summonses. The judgment therefore resolved the amendment-power question but did not state the subsequent disposition of those summonses.