The State has appealed to the Supreme Court against a High Court finding that a 1989 Act aimed at developing the Great Blasket Island into a national park is unconstitutional.
In the High Court in March 1998, Mr Justice Budd declared as unconstitutional the Blascaod Mor National Parks Act, introduced in 1989 by the then Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, in his capacity as minister for the Gaeltacht. The Act was aimed at developing the Great Blasket Island into a national park through acquiring most of it by means of a compulsory purchase order.
The constitutionality of the Act was challenged by four people who between them owned most of the island. In his 182-page decision, Mr Justice Budd held for the plaintiffs and awarded costs to them, estimated at some £1 million, against the State. In May 1998 the Supreme Court refused to grant a stay on the costs order.
Mr Peter Callery, a solicitor from Dingle, Co Kerry; his brother, James, of Elphin, Co Roscommon; Ms Kay Brooks, widow of a former US diplomat; and Mr Matthias Jauch, of Mercier Park, Turner's Cross, Cork, control 17/25ths of the island through a company, An Blascaod Mor Teo.
Ms Brooks owns 50 per cent of the landholding while the Callerys hold 25 per cent each of the remaining land. Mr Jauch inherited a property which his late brother, Arne had owned jointly with a Kerry man, Mr Muiris Cleary. A University College Cork lecturer, Mr Jauch has strong links with the Dingle peninsula and lost two brothers who were drowned off the Great Blasket Island.
Mr George Brady SC, with Mr James Connolly SC, for the State, said there were three grounds for the declaration of unconstitutionality of the 1989 Act which the State disputed. These were the State's failure to consult interested parties regarding its acquisition of the island, to take into account an offer of co-operation from the owners of the island and to treat them with equality.
Mr Brady said there was no duty on the State to consult persons who might be affected by the introduction of an Act. There were also no agreed facts on an offer to co-operate from the owners of the island.
The State had held the view that co-operation with the acquisition was not feasible because, among other factors, of the need to control public access to the island and because EU funding would not have been available in circumstances where the island was not State-owned.
The hearing continues today.