A Supreme Court judge has concluded that the High Court exceeded its constitutional role when it ordered Ministers to ensure that a series of secure and high-support residential units for young people were built and opened by specified deadlines around the State.
The appeal arose from nine judicial review cases involving minors with significant care and educational needs. One applicant, T.D., had been involved with special schools, residential placements and other services over many years. His proceedings began in 1997 and initially sought appropriate education and care for him personally.
By early 2000, however, the High Court proceedings had broadened considerably. Mr Justice Kelly ordered the Ministers for Education and for Health and Children to take all necessary steps to facilitate ten specified projects and additional places. These included units in Castleblayney, County Monaghan, County Clare, County Limerick, Waterford and County Cork, with fixed completion dates extending into 2001.
Mr Justice Hardiman said the order went beyond resolving the individual applicants’ claims. In substance, it required the court to enforce a national policy, direct the expenditure of public money and retain control over any future change of policy through applications to vary the injunction.
He rejected the proposition that the order became permissible merely because it reflected plans the Government had itself announced. The constitutional question, he said, was whether the court had power to make such an order at all.
Hardiman J held that policy formation, allocation of public resources and executive implementation were constitutionally assigned to the political branches, which are accountable to Dáil Éireann. Courts could intervene exceptionally where a State organ consciously and deliberately disregarded a constitutional obligation, but even then should not prescribe the particular policy or means to be used.
He also found that the applicants had not established standing to obtain the nationwide relief granted or shown that the specified facilities corresponded to their individual needs.
Hardiman J concluded that the appeal should be allowed and the High Court order set aside.