The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the Pro Life Campaign to participate as an amicus curiae in an upcoming appeal concerning an immigration decision and the interests of a child who was unborn when her father sought revocation of a deportation order.
The ruling, delivered by Justice O’Donnell on 7 February 2018, concerned only whether the campaign should be allowed to join the appeal. It did not decide the appeal itself, which was scheduled to be heard on 21 and 22 February.
The underlying proceedings began after the father applied to the Minister for Justice and Equality to revoke his deportation order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. He argued that the Minister had to consider that his partner was pregnant. The High Court held, among other things, that the Minister had to take account of the position of a child who was unborn when the revocation application was made. The State appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear a direct appeal from the High Court.
The campaign sought permission to support or amplify arguments for the family. In its application, it cited its interest in the constitutional status of the unborn and raised concerns about the appeal timetable and whether the family’s lawyers had sufficient resources. The State’s affidavit noted that more than 4,500 organisations had consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
The Supreme Court said the application had to be assessed by whether the proposed intervention was likely to assist it significantly. It described the appeal as involving a question of law, with no medical or social issue to be determined. The family’s lawyers were experienced, had represented them throughout the proceedings and had not said they were disadvantaged or needed outside assistance. The campaign had identified no particular legal argument it could add, the court said.
The judges also considered the wider context, including public discussion of a proposed referendum concerning Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. They said admitting a partisan group could make it harder to refuse similar applications from other groups, potentially causing logistical difficulties or delay. They were also concerned that broader policy arguments could draw attention away from the specific legal issues the court had to decide.
The court concluded that the existing parties could adequately advance the relevant arguments and dismissed the campaign’s application. The ruling addressed participation in the appeal only; it did not determine the constitutional or immigration issues that remained for the appeal.