THE HIGH Court has declared that a provision of the Housing Acts is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The provision allows a local authority to secure a court order for possession of a council house, without any court or indpendent inquiry into the reasons why, when there is a genuine dispute about those.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy made the finding yesterday in proceedings brought by Anthony Donegan against Dublin City Council and the State over the termination of his tenancy of a council house on Bridgefoot Street in the south inner city. The judge will hear submissions as to the precise form of the declaration at a later date.
The declaration relates to section 62 of the Housing Act, 1966, as amended by section 13 of the Housing Act, 1970, which provides that the District Court, upon being satisfied the demand is duly made, shall grant a local authority a warrant for possession of a house in circumstances including where the tenancy has been terminated by notice to quit.
The fact that section 62 enables Mr Donegan to be evicted by an organ of the State without the burden of giving reasons, liable to be examined on their merits by an independent tribunal, does not contain the safeguards necessary to protect his rights to respect for his private and family life and his home under Article 8 of the convention, the judge held.
The judge noted Mr Donegan became a tenant of the council at Bridgefoot Street under a tenancy agreement of August 2002 and his son, now aged 28, lives with him there.
In November 2003, gardaí searched the house and found no unlawful drugs but the council later reported the gardaí had found substantial evidence in the son’s bedroom to show heroin was prepared and packed for sale on the streets and that other “drugs paraphernalia” was found in the bedroom, including blood-filled syringes and dirty needles.
The council began an investigation into alleged antisocial behaviour. Mr Donegan had claimed only one plastic bag was found in his son’s bedroom plus used syringes, which were for his son’s personal use. He said his son was a drug addict and not a drug dealer.
The council told Mr Donegan he had the alternative of excluding his son from the house or delivering up possession. Mr Donegan later told the council in a letter from his solicitors that he believed none of his household were responsible for antisocial behaviour, that he had asked his son to provide details of urine analysis to confirm he was not taking “unprescribed drugs” and was most anxious to co-operate with the council.
Ms Justice Laffoy said that letter appeared to have elicited no response from the council. The judge noted the council itself could have sought to exclude Mr Donegan’s son but did not do so.
