Ruling on children's accommodation overturned

The Supreme Court today overturned a ruling ordering the State to build accommodation for at-risk children.

The Supreme Court today overturned a ruling ordering the State to build accommodation for at-risk children.

In February 2000, High Court Judge Mr Justice Peter Kelly ruled the Government had a constitutional obligation to provide for the accommodation needs of children with particular problems and also to meet its own deadlines for doing so.

Quote
. . . it should not have been granted by the trial judge, however much one may sympathise with his obvious concern and exasperation at the manner in which this problem had been addressed at the legislative and executive level
Unquote
Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane

Under this order the State was obliged to build and open seven special units catering for 40 disturbed children outside the Eastern Regional Health Board Area.

Mr Justice Kelly described the lack of such units as a "scandalous situation" which had been going on for years.

READ MORE

The Government had indicated its wllingness to build the units but was unwilling to be bound by the courts to do so. As a result, it appealed Mr Justice Kelly's order.

In his ruling today Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, found that the High Court order went beyond the powers of Mr Justice Kelly.

Mr Justice Keane said the order effectively determined the policy which the Government was to follow in dealing with a particular social problem.

"I am satisfied that the granting of an order of this nature is inconsistent with the distribution of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial arms of Government mandated by the Constitution.

"It follows that, as a matter of principle, it should not have been granted by the trial judge, however much one may sympathise with his obvious concern and exasperation at the manner in which this problem had been addressed at the legislative and executive level," he said.

Mr Justice Keane said the making of the order would have meant the Government would have had to return to the High Court to obtain its sanction to any change in policy which departed from the precise terms of the order.