A High Court judge has deprecated three applicants’ “dangerously provocative allegations” as he refused to halt controversial plans to house migrants on the site of a former paint factory in Coolock, Dublin.
In rejecting the application brought by Melissa Kelly, Amanda Farrelly and Alan Croghan, Mr Justice David Holland said the High Court is “not just another soapbox or social media outlet” or a “public protest”.
Giving his decision on Thursday, Mr Justice Holland said the plaintiffs’ legal documents were “awash in meaningless conspiracy theories”.
The legal grounds advanced – an alleged breach of the precautionary principle and an alleged breach of Aarhus public participation rights – were “unstateable” and did not meet the threshold for granting an injunction to prevent the site being used to house migrants, he said.
Former HSE manager shared sexual abuse images of ‘utmost depravity’ online, Mayo court hears
Businesswoman claims she has been threatened by man refusing to vacate house she purchased
Use of fireworks at Halloween widespread despite garda seizures worth €225,000 over 10 years
Cybersecurity firm sued by executive claims she resigned by mutual agreement
The site of the former Crown Paints warehouse was the scene of violence, fires and considerable unrest during the summer over a proposal to develop 230 prefabricated units to accommodate up to 741 international protection applicants. More than 20 people have been charged in connection with scenes of disorder at the site.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Holland was highly critical of many of the plaintiffs’ allegations, which he said were a step “down a road which leads to racist xenophobia, discrimination and, history teaches us, not infrequently far worse”.
He said their claims together “comprise a vicious narrative ... by othering and dehumanising human beings” and by categorising them as “risk of contagion – disease-carriers, threats to children – and as criminals”.
Despite the plaintiffs’ “protestations to the contrary”, their “clear intent” is to bestir “hatred” of migrants, the judge said.
Injunctions are granted in response to evidence, and there was no evidence before the court of the actuality or risk of genocide, plantation, contagion or civil war, he said. There was also “no evidence whatsoever” to support the “vicious” allegations made against Garda Commissioner Drew Harris, he added.
He said there can be “no doubt” that migration represents a “very considerable political challenge”, worldwide and in Ireland, and it is important that migration is managed in accordance with law. Appreciable numbers of people have genuine concerns about migration control and those concerns are to be considered by the Oireachtas, the judge added.
However, he rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that their particular views can be attributed to “the people of Coolock” or the Irish people generally.
Last week, lawyers for the company leasing and proposing to develop the former Crown Paints warehouse into accommodation for international protection applicants said works on the project will not commence unless the site is safe. The court also heard there is currently no contract with the State for the provision of international protection accommodation at the premises, while any potential contract would be subject to preconditions.
Ms Kelly, a farmer with an address in Woodlawn, Ballinasloe, Co Galway; Ms Farrelly, a taxi driver living in Coolock; and Mr Croghan, a resident of Fairfield estate, Coolock, represented themselves in their High Court action. Ms Kelly said she attended several peaceful protests in Coolock, while her co-plaintiffs were also very involved.
Their case is against site leaseholder Townbe Unlimited Company and its directors, Paul Collins and Tanya Hennigan; the chief superintendent of Coolock, the Garda Commissioner, Dublin City Council, the Government and Minister for Integration Roderic O’Gorman, whose department oversees the international protection accommodation system.
The respondents, who were all legally represented, argued the injunction could not be granted.
The case will return to court in early December when, the court heard, the respondents will seek to granted their legal costs.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
