The High Court has ruled that it requires more information in order to decide on an application by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) to appear as amicus curiae in judicial review proceedings taken against Oberstown youth detention centre. The main proceedings, arose from complaints by young people regarding their conditions of detention and solitary confinement at Oberstown.
IHREC made the application to appear in the proceedings as amicus curiae, or friends of the court, pursuant to Irish Human Rights and Equality Act 2014 (the Act). The Act provides that IHREC can apply to appear as amicus curiae in cases concerning human rights and equality – the courts retain absolute discretion as to whether to grant the application. Counsel for the respondents in the proceedings – the Director of Oberstown and the Minister for Justice submitted that the High Court was being asked to grant the application on an uninformed basis. Counsel argued that the affidavit evidence of IHREC Chief Commissioner Emily Logan gave little information as to why IHREC viewed the matter as one of significant public interest.
Looking at Irish jurisprudence on amicus curiae, Mr Justice Robert Eagar identified several issues in the application. With regards to the principle that IHREC show bona fide interest in the proceedings, IHREC submitted that given the ages of the children involved, important human rights issues were raised. It was, however, noted by the court that no information was furnished by IHREC as to the decision-making process leading to their application.
As for the issue of public importance, Mr Justice Eager cited Fitzpatrick v FK as emphasising that amicus curiae offer a perspective not otherwise placed before the court, thereby bringing some added value to the proceedings. In this respect, the Court found the application was lacking as it offered “no clarity as to [IHREC’s] proposed role”. It was held that in the proceedings at hand, there was a high onus on the applicant to show that it would remain impartial as a friend of the court rather than a party to the action, and that it would not duplicate the arguments of the parties or entrench upon factual disputes.
Mr Justice Eager acknowledged that the main proceedings may raise implications for the administration of detention centres for children in Ireland generally and that human rights focused submissions may be of particular relevance in this context. However, the Court agreed with the submission of the respondent’s counsel that IHREC’s application failed to identify its precise role in the proceedings. Mr Justice Eager ruled that if the application is to be granted, IHREC is required to furnish the court with more information as to whether it will make oral or legal submissions, as to how it arrived at the decision to apply and as to how its expertise in the specific human rights at issue is engaged. In particular, IHREC must elaborate on the “regard” it had to the Council of Europe Rules for Juvenile Offenders.
Click here for a copy of the judgement.