The Supreme Court is to hear an appeal brought by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) against a ruling that the State had not breached the human right to dignity of international protection applicants by failing to accommodate them.
In July the Court of Appeal (CoA) had upheld the State’s appeal against a High Court ruling on proceedings taken by the commission.
The High Court had found in August last year that, in failing to provide accommodation, the State had breached the human right to dignity of single male international protection applicants.
In a newly published determination, a three-judge Supreme Court panel said it would grant permission to the IHREC to appeal against the CoA ruling, stating its application “clearly satisfies” the constitutional criteria for appeal.
RM Block
In its ruling, the CoA had accepted the commission had proven, based on testimony from 13 applicants, the men were in a situation of extreme material poverty. But it disagreed the group’s health issues were representative of all applicants in similar positions, saying the evidence was limited to those individuals’ experiences.
Appeal judges also held the IHREC had not provided adequate evidence to prove the physical or mental health of unaccommodated applicants was undermined or they were in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity.
Summarising the IRHEC’s application seeking permission to appeal this ruling, the Supreme Court panel said the commission’s case raised issues of significant public importance – specifically regarding the interpretation of article one of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Given the “very different conclusions” reached by the High Court and the CoA in the case, the IHREC argued it was appropriate to allow a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The IHREC also said the appeal should be permitted in the interests of justice, arguing the CoA allowed the State’s appeal on a basis that was not specifically advanced in the State’s case.
The Supreme Court panel said the State was in agreement that the subject matter of the proceedings was of general public importance, identifying several “headline features”.
These included the potential liability of the State in circumstances where it was temporarily unable to “provide material reception conditions to a limited cohort of international protection applicants because of unprecedented circumstances”.
The State also agreed the application and interpretation of article one of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU was of importance.
An appeal was in the interests of justice, according to the State, given the potential impact of the outcome of the proceedings on future cases and because of the differing conclusions reached by the High Court and CoA.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court panel said several matters of general public importance had been identified by the parties, including issues relating to the rights charter.
The judges also said it was in the interests of justice for the appeal to be permitted.
