Latest news with #HIGHCOURT
The Journal
3 days ago
- Business
- The Journal
'People's livelihoods at risk': Decision on opening of Skellig Michael to tourists due this week
A HIGH COURT judge will decide this week whether to lift a suspension on boating permits for ferries to and from the UNESCO heritage island Skellig Michael, saying the case requires top priority as 'people's livelihoods are at risk'. The permits have not been issued while legal proceedings are before the courts in the form of a judicial review of the tendering process. At the High Court today, Justice Garret Simons said he was 'staggered' by the assertion made by lawyers for the Office of Public Works (OPW) that it would need six months to prepare the case. He ordered it to be heard next month. Two companies, which were unsuccessful in their applications for the 2025 season, have made a judicial review application, resulting in a delay to the granting of permits. The season runs from May to the end of September. The OPW ran a competition in late 2024 to award 15 boating permits for summer 2025 serving the monastic island, which was chosen as a film location for the Star Wars movies, The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. However, in April 2025, two unsuccessful participants in the competition brought High Court proceedings challenging the outcome. The OPW has said that under Irish and EU law, they were then precluded from issuing permits for the 2025 summer season until legal proceedings were resolved. Advertisement Skellig Michael Boat Trips and Atlantic Endeavour Limited both dispute the process underpinning the granting of the licences, alleging it to be 'deficient' and 'without transparency' and have been granted permission for the challenge. At the High Court today, David Dodd BL, for the plaintiffs, told Justice Simons that nobody wanted to prevent boats from visiting the island. He said permits could be granted by the court in an interim fashion, as the issuing of a one-season permit was not a 'contract', as contended by the OPW. He said his clients are happy for the suspension to be lifted. Justice Simons asked Andrew Beck SC, for the OPW, why it would take six months to prepare for what the judge described as 'the most straightforward case of competition for licences'. Beck said there was discovery of documents needed, amendments to make and a possible issue around cross-examination. Justice Simons said he was 'staggered' that the case would take up to six months to get on and that there were 'livelihoods' at stake. The judge said the court would give the case 'top priority', adding that the court had 'gone out of its way' to facilitate an early trial. Justice Simons said he would rule on Thursday of this week on whether to lift the suspension of the permits. He adjourned the substantive hearing of the judicial review to 21 July. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
The Journal
29-05-2025
- The Journal
High Court rules suspension of Garda who allegedly had inappropriate relationship with woman is lawful
THE HIGH COURT has ruled that the suspension of a garda who allegedly had an inappropriate relationship with a woman who made a criminal complaint to him is lawful. Last March, Donegal-based Garda Keith Harrison brought a High Court challenge against his ongoing suspension. Harrison brought judicial review proceedings before the High Court seeking orders lifting and quashing his suspension. The suspension relates to allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with a woman who for a time was his partner. It is alleged that in 2019, Harrison took a formal statement from a woman who had made a criminal complaint of domestic abuse against her then partner. Harrison later entered into a relationship with this woman. While she is not pursuing any criminal complaint against Harrison, An Garda Síochána contend that the relationship was 'inappropriate and contrary to the professional duty of care owed by a member of An Garda Síochána to a person alleged to be a vulnerable victim of a crime'. An Garda Síochána also cited a 'power dynamic between a person making a complaint of domestic abuse and the Garda to whom that complaint is made'. The High Court noted that there is 'strong evidence of the applicant having entered into a sexual relationship with the complainant within weeks of the complaint of domestic abuse'. The woman, who can't be named to respect her privacy, didn't pursue a criminal prosecution against her then partner. Advertisement It was argued by Harrison that the fact that there was no criminal prosecution by the woman against her then partner means that she cannot properly be described as a 'vulnerable victim of a crime'. It was also argued that this 'at the very least reduces the seriousness of the alleged breach of discipline'. However, the High Court said there are many reasons why a criminal prosecution might not be pursued in the context of alleged domestic abuse and that 'it cannot automatically be inferred that the person making the complaint was not vulnerable'. Harrison previously stated that he entered into 'a fully consensual' relationship with the woman and noted that the two have a child together. Harrison was first suspended in March 2021 and his suspension has been extended in a series of three-monthly decisions since. The High Court today ruled that Harrison's continued suspension is lawful. Mr. Justice Garrett Simons said that given the 'seriousness of the breaches of discipline alleged, it was reasonable and rational for the Assistant Commissioner to extend this suspension on each of the three-monthly reviews'. The judge dismissed the application for judicial review. Harrison was one of several garda members to have appeared before the Disclosures Tribunal, which investigated claims by Garda whistleblowers. In 2017 and 2018, the tribunal chair Mr Justice Peter Charleton rejected allegations by Harrison and his then-partner. The allegations included that a woman, who is not the woman at the centre of the High Court legal action, was compelled by gardaí to make a statement against Harrison that led to a Tusla referral and that Harrison was the victim of a five-year intimidation campaign after arresting a fellow officer for drink driving in 2009. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
The Journal
27-05-2025
- General
- The Journal
High Court orders turbine to shut down at certain windspeeds overnight due to sleep disturbance
THE HIGH COURT has ordered that a wind turbine in Co Wexford be shut down at night for certain windspeeds due to its potential to disturb sleep. The turbine will also have to operate on a lower mode during quiet waking hours at certain windspeeds. Last year, the High Court ruled that one of two wind turbines at Ballyduff Windfarm at Kilcomb, near Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, amounted to an 'unreasonable interference' with the enjoyment of two couples' properties. This action was taken by Margret Webster and her partner Keith Rollo, whose home is close to the wind farm that has been operational since 2017. A second action was taken by Ross Shorten and Joan Carty, who owned another property close to the turbines but sold it after commencing their proceedings in 2018. The wind farm is operated by Meenacloghspar (Wind) Limited. The cases were the first private nuisance claims from wind turbine noise to run in Ireland or the UK, the judge said. At the conclusion of module 1 of the trial last year, the High Court deemed that 'one of the two turbines caused a nuisance to the plaintiffs during night hours and quiet waking hours'. The judge, Ms. Justice Emily Egan, then directed the parties involves to 'attempt to agree appropriate mitigation measures to abate the nuisance in advance of module 2'. The Court noted that the defendant trialled just one potential mitigation measure – the operation of the turbine in a lower power mode. This reduces the rotational speed of the turbine blades and marginally reduces the wind turbine noise. The plaintiffs said this lower power mode did not mitigate the noise nuisance and sought an order to shutdown the turbine during 'sensitive', quiet waking hours. The judge agreed that the lower power mode trialled by the defendant 'does not ameliorate the nuisance'. However, the defendant's claimed that the wind turbine noise did not create a noise nuisance even in its 'full' power mode and that no mitigation is required. Advertisement The defendant also sought to bring forth new evidence to persuade the Court to review the findings made last year after module 1 of the trial. It was contended by the defendant that the new evidence showed that the wind turbine noise was lower than the limit currently fixed in Irish planning guidance. The judge rejected the data provided by the defendant and said it did not provides a 'scientifically robust guidance on what level and nature of wind turbine noise causes unacceptable interference with residential amenity'. She added that the new evidence 'does not comprise a useful or complete baseline assessment for the purposes of crafting abatement measures'. 'Even if admitted, the defendant's new evidence would not substantially impact or alter my finding on liability', said the judge, who declined to admit the evidence or revisit last year's findings on liability. The judge remarked on the benefits of renewable energy but added that the plaintiffs are 'entitled to an injunctive remedy'. The Court ordered that the It seems that noise levels therefore had to be reduced by a 'clearly noticeable degree'. She remarked that five decibel reduction would be an 'easily noticeable noise differential'. The defendant was ordered to implement this noise reduction and to operate on a lower mode 'during quiet waking hours at certain wind speeds and wind directions'. The judge added however that this would not be an acceptable solution during night hours. The judge said this is partly because she is 'not satisfied' that the predicted noise level reductions by lowering the power mode 'can be reliably and consistently achieved at night'. She also noted that 'constant sudden changes to the wind turbine noise at night would have a jarring effect, disturb sleep and thus cause ongoing nuisance'. As a result, the judge ordered the shutdown of the turbine at night for 'windspeeds of 5m/s to 11 m/s inclusive in those wind directions associated with high AM values and thump AM'. AM (Amplitude Modulation) relates to the variance of wind turbine noise, which can cause more annoyance than constant, stable noise of a similar level. A 'high AM value' is a noticeable variation in the sound, often described as a 'swish' or a 'thump'. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
