A challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to allow field trials of genetically-engineered sugar beet in Co Carlow will be heard by the High Court next month.
Mr Justice Kelly yesterday fixed June 30th as the date for hearing of judicial review proceedings taken by Ms Clare Watson, of Genetic Concern, against the EPA and Monsanto plc.
The case was due to be heard yesterday, but was adjourned on a number of agreed conditions. The EPA and Monsanto had strongly opposed the adjournment application.
In the proceedings, Ms Watson is challenging the EPA's decision of May 1st, 1997, to grant Monsanto a licence to grow genetically-modified sugar beet on lands owned by Teagasc in Co Carlow. Ms Watson had secured an interim injunction preventing the trials proceeding, but that order was later discharged and the trials are now under way.
In court yesterday Mr John Gordon SC, for Ms Watson, applied for the adjournment and also sought liberty to file an additional affidavit from Dr Mae Wan Ho, a geneticist at the Open University. Mr Gordon said that he had only very recently come into the case and needed some time to familiarise himself with the very complex scientific evidence.
Mr James Macken SC, for the EPA, and Ms Fidelma Macken SC, for Monsanto, both opposed the application for the adjournment and for admission of the affidavit from Dr Ho. Ms Macken said the matter was not about the merits or demerits of genetic engineering, but about the procedures adopted by the EPA in granting the licence to Monsanto.
After hearing submissions from both sides and evidence from Ms Fionnuala Cawkhill, solicitor for Ms Watson, the judge said he would grant the adjournment on a number of conditions.
He said the case had been due to proceed last December, but no judge had been available. A number of factors had arisen since then, including non-availability, because of commitments in other courts, of two senior counsel for Ms Watson. A decision had also been taken to file additional affidavit evidence from Dr Ho, and Mr Gordon had said he needed time to update himself on scientific material relating to the case.
The judge said he wanted to make it clear that the Supreme Court had stated that, as far as judicial reviews were concerned, the courts were not concerned with the merits of the decision itself but rather with the decisionmaking process.
He said it would appear that at least some of the scientific material might not be of relevance to the judicial review application. But, he added, Mr Gordon had said some of it was required by way of general background. As Ms Watson had been given leave to challenge the EPA decision on grounds of irrationality, that would also require some consideration of the scientific material.
He said Mr Gordon had established that there was at least an arguable case for admitting the scientific material outlined in the evidence of Dr Ho.
The judge said he would allow Dr Ho's affidavit to be filed and would give the other parties two weeks to respond. He fixed June 30th as the date for hearing on the undertaking that no further affidavit evidence would be filed and that all procedural steps were completed outside the filing of Dr Ho's affidavit. Mr Gordon gave the undertakings sought.
