Three members of the public seeking to prevent a former paint factory in Coolock, north Dublin being used to house persons claiming international protection have indicated they will bring a motion to the High Court seeking to reopen the hearing of the case.
Mr Justice David Holland last October refused the application for an injunction restraining the former Crown Paints warehouse from being developed into accommodation for up to 741 international protection applicants.
The judge was highly critical of “dangerously provocative allegations” made by Melissa Kelly, Amanda Farrelly and Alan Croghan in the proceedings, and stated that the High Court was “not just another soapbox or social media outlet” or a “public protest”.
The site of the former Crown Paints warehouse was the scene of violence, fires and considerable unrest last summer, stirred by plans to develop accommodation.
Chris Murphy emerges as a clear voice for Democrats countering Trump
Loneliness: ‘I usually say I’m fine, but the reality is, most days, I’m at home by myself with my memories’
SSE Airtricity misread Anne’s meter, overcharged her by thousands and won’t refund her
Newlyweds land job as caretakers of Great Blasket Island
Ms Kelly on Monday indicated that she wanted to reopen the injunction hearing, claiming the court was misled regarding the site leaseholder and developer Townbe Unlimited Company’s plans for the roof of the former warehouse. Mr Justice Holland granted liberty for Ms Kelly and her two co-plaintiffs to bring a motion to reopen the injunction hearing.
The judge also granted liberty for respondents Townbe, Dublin City Council and the State to bring motions to strike out the proceedings. He listed the case for late March.
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 the proceedings.
Giving his decision last October, 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.
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.
