M -v- The Minister for Justice & Equality & ors [2018] IESC 7 (07 February 2018)

M -v- The Minister for Justice & Equality & ors [2018] IESC 7 (07 February 2018)

The court determined that the existing parties are legally represented and fully capable of advancing all relevant arguments. The applicant did not identify any unique legal argument or expertise that would significantly assist the court. Allowing intervention would risk blurring legal and policy issues, complicating proceedings, and potentially delaying the case. The application was precipitated by the referendum context rather than the legal proceedings themselves. The court dismissed the application for amicus curiae participation.

Citation
[2018] IESC 7
Parties
Respondent/applicant: IRM; Respondent/applicant: Sarah Jane Rogers; Respondent/applicant: SOM (A Minor Suing by her Father and Next Friend IRM); Appellant: Minister for Justice and Equality; Appellant: Ireland; Appellant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Leapfrog Appeal From High Court Decision Under Article 34.5.4 of the Constitution / Ruling on Application for Amicus Curiae Participation
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amicus Curiae, Rights of the Unborn, Deportation Order, Constitutional Interpretation, Referendum Process
Constitutional Law Immigration Law Family Law Amicus Curiae Rights of the Unborn Deportation Order Constitutional Interpretation Referendum Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IRM

Respondent/applicant

Sarah Jane Rogers

Respondent/applicant

SOM (A Minor Suing by her Father and Next Friend IRM)

Respondent/applicant

Minister for Justice and Equality

Appellant

Ireland

Appellant

Attorney General

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Leapfrog Appeal From High Court Decision Under Article 34.5.4 of the Constitution / Ruling on Application for Amicus Curiae Participation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the Pro Life Campaign be permitted to participate as amicus curiae in the appeal?
  2. 2 Does the court require additional legal expertise beyond that provided by the existing parties?
  3. 3 Would permitting intervention blur the distinction between legal argument and broader policy debate?

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the existing parties are legally represented and fully capable of advancing all relevant arguments. The applicant did not identify any unique legal argument or expertise that would significantly assist the court. Allowing intervention would risk blurring legal and policy issues, complicating proceedings, and potentially delaying the case. The application was precipitated by the referendum context rather than the legal proceedings themselves. The court dismissed the application for amicus curiae participation.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application by the Pro Life Campaign to participate as amicus curiae is refused.