The High Court has refused to allow a man to continue with his challenge to regulations that allow fast-tracked development of accommodation for asylum seekers and displaced Ukrainians.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said Patrick McGreal’s case had a “potentially arguable point” but it was “abstractly premised” and lacked the necessary factual engagement to be allowed to continue.
The judge recommended Mr McGreal, who was not represented by a legal team, should in any potential future case “err on the side of leaving out the accusations of crime, fraud and perjury”, as he said such allegations tend not to help the court in this context.
The regulations, introduced last year by Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien, allow the Minister for Integration to sanction a planning permission exemption for the temporary use of buildings or sites to house displaced people and those seeking international protection.
Mr McGreal, from Westmeath, wanted the court to put a stop to their use and to grant an injunction preventing international protection applicants and displaced people from being housed in accommodation that is “not within the scope of the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000″.
Among his claims was that the regulations do not explicitly address an alleged requirement for proper planning of essential community infrastructure.
Mr McGreal previously unsuccessfully sought an injunction to halt a proposal to house asylum seekers at a hotel in the village of Dundrum, Co Tipperary. This application was made in a separate court case.
The sole respondent in the case concerning the 2023 regulations, the Minister for Housing, issued a motion asking the court to overturn a judge’s earlier order permitting Mr McGreal to proceed with his regulations challenge.
The Minister claimed the case disclosed no reasonable cause of action against him and was “frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail”.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys found various “fixable” flaws in Mr McGreal’s legal documents. However, insuperable hurdles were his lack of standing to bring the case, the “abstract nature of the challenge”, and his timing.
The judge said an applicant “can’t simply wander into court to challenge measures of general application in isolation”. Laws enacted many years ago can be legally challenged, but such cases must concern “some new fact situation” rather than be based on “maybe this Act you have just looked up is unconstitutional”, he said.
He did not agree with Mr McGreal that standing to challenge the regulations could be derived simply from being a citizen of Ireland or committed to democratic values.
Mr Justice Humphreys said Mr McGreal had a “potentially arguable point” about the reasonableness of the conclusion that the effects of temporary asylum seeker housing was limited so as to warrant exemption from planning permission requirements.
However, various issues with his case could not be overcome. The judge overturned his colleague’s earlier grant of “leave”, which had allowed Mr McGreal’s case to proceed.
He held that each side should be responsible for their own legal costs and expenses.
