Carrickminders: Refusal of Injunction to be Appealed to the Supreme Court

national | miscellaneous | news report Thursday February 13, 2003 13:55 by redJaDe

Refusal of Injunction to be Appealed to the Supreme Court

CARRICKMINDERS PRESS RELEASE

http://CarrickminesCastle.org

13th February 2003

Refusal of Injunction to be Appealed to the Supreme Court

A letter written on behalf of Mr. Gordon Lucas and Mr. Dominick Dunne was sent to Dun Laoghaire - Rathdown County Council (DLCC) early this morning, putting them on notice of the parties intent to appeal their case to the Supreme Court of Ireland. Their application for an interlocutory injunction, seeking to restrain DLCC from removing section of the defenses at the Carrickmines Castle archaeological site, was denied in the High Court yesterday by Judge Lavan.

Immediately afterwards the appellants took the advice of their counsel Mr. Frank Callanan SC, and Mr. Colm MacEoghaidh, along with Philip Lee Solicitors, and the decision was made to push ahead with an appeal immmediately. A telephone call was made last night to the Law Agent of DLCC, just in case there were plans to proceed with the works immediately.

This morning an attempt was made to re-open channels of communication between Carrickminders, DLCC and the National Roads Authority (NRA). Mr. Vincent Salafia, spokesman for Carrickminders, spoke to Mr. Eamon O'Hare, Director of Transport for DLCC, and is waiting to hear back. Mr O'Hare said he will give the matter some thought.

Yesterday's result decision was an unacceptable result for Carrickminders. Having taken on this issue, in the public interest, we have a responsibility to see it through to it's natural conclusion. We will be holding a public meeting in Dun Laoghaire in the coming weeks, and organising other events in order to provide a forum for debate on the matter.

Yesterday's decision raises some new considerations, such as an Irish citizen's ability to gain access to the courts, which wil be examined in the coming weeks. Judge Lavan placed great emphasis on the fact that the plaintiffs would not be able to pay for the damages if the road was delayed. Because of this, the court may not have fully examined the substantce of the case, based on the National Monument's Act, (1930), which states: "It shall not be lawful for any person...to demolish or remove wholly or in part or to disfigure, deface, alter, or in any manner injure or interfere with any such national monument without or otherwise than in accordance with...consent."

Section 14: http://193.120.124.98/ZZA2Y1930S14.html

Full Act: http://193.120.124.98/ZZA2Y1930.html

We hope that the Supreme Court will address this point directly.
---------------
Vincent Salafia, Spokesman (087) 132-3365
uatuathal@yahoo.com