A MOTHER of 10 has won an interim High Court order preventing Dublin City Council evicting her family over admitted anti-social behaviour of two of her sons.
The injunction applies pending the outcome of proceedings by Patricia Byrne against the council aimed at preventing eviction from her home of the last five years at Belcamp Crescent, Priorswood, Dublin, and a condition of the order is that the two sons do not return home in the meantime.
Ms Byrne was served with a notice to quit by the council in January 2007 on grounds of the anti-social behaviour of her sons Michael and Edward Byrne including “persistent and very serious crime and intimidation”.
She told the council she was prepared to get barring orders against her two sons and accepted they were posing a problem.
She claimed she got assurances from the council that if she got barring orders she would not be evicted, and she had obtained an order against her son Michael in October 2007.
The council denied it had given any such assurances and sought to enforce an eviction warrant granted under Section 62 of the 1966 Housing Act for reasons of “good estate management”.
In her High Court proceedings, Ms Byrne argued Section 62 did not give her any opportunity to confront those who accused her of anti-social behaviour in breach of Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to respect for family and private life.
In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy noted Michael and Edward no longer resided at Ms Byrne’s as both were apparently sentenced to imprisonment on October 17th last.
In those circumstances, the judge said, it was difficult to justify interfering with the protection for family life afforded by the European convention. While the council had statutory duties with regard to good estate management, these may not provide a justification for eviction such as to displace its other obligation under Section 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the eviction of Ms Byrne, and her other children who continue to reside with her, would constitute a breach of Section 3, he said.
As Ms Byrne would be rendered homeless by the eviction, the balance of convenience favoured granting her the injunction, the judge said.