Two people described as members of Youth Defence won their appeal to the Supreme Court yesterday against a High Court decision permitting the Irish Family Planning Association to continue an action against them.
The IFPA is seeking permanent orders and damages arising from a picket of one of its clinics in March 1999.
The proceedings arose from a Youth Defence picket of the IFPA clinic at Cathal Brugha Street, Dublin, in March 1999. Yesterday's appeal was taken by Mr Maurice Colgan and Ms Niamh Nic Mhathúna.
On March 8th, 1999, the High Court granted the IFPA an interim order restraining Youth Defence and three people, including Mr Colgan and Ms Nic Mhathúna, from picketing the headquarters and clinics of the IFPA. An interlocutory order to the same effect was granted on March 11th, 1999.
Later proceedings were issued alleging breach of the order restraining picketing. At a hearing in August 1999, counsel for Youth Defence and other parties undertook to abide by the terms of the March order and proceedings were struck out against other persons.
Mr Colgan, of Elmesborough Crescent, Tallaght, Dublin, appealed against part of the High Court order of Mr Justice O'Donovan of August 18th, 1999. He appealed against the judge's failure to dismiss the motion against him and also the failure to award him costs against the IFPA, claiming the judge erred in law and in fact.
That appeal was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said it appeared Mr Colgan should never have been before the court at all. The trial judge had noted Mr Colgan was not named or identified in affidavits on behalf of the IFPA as being in breach of the March High Court order, and had accepted Mr Colgan's assertion he did not do anything to breach that order. The Chief Justice told Mr Colgan the court would make an order allowing his appeal and awarded him costs against the IFPA.
The IFPA had applied to the Master of the High Court for an extension of time in which to bring an action for damages and permanent orders restraining pickets of its clinics by members of Youth Defence.
An extension of time was refused and the IFPA appealed that refusal to the High Court, which in June 2001 allowed the appeal and granted an extension of time for the IFPA to deliver a statement of claim.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court the two members of Youth Defence argued that the court should reverse the High Court finding. They claimed there was an issue of law involved and that as the IFPA was bringing the action, there was an onus on it to explain in a sworn statement why there was extensive delay in issuing a statement of claim.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously found in favour of the two members of Youth Defence.
Mr Justice Brian McCracken said it now transpired that the real case sought to be made against Mr Colgan and Ms Nic Mhathúna was that as officers of Youth Defence in some way they directed the events of March 6th, 1999, and conspired with others to have the trespass take place. It was now over four years since a plenary summons was issued by the IFPA and it had never made this case.
Neither the summons nor the statement of claim made any claim for damages for conspiracy. He thought it unlikely that any court would allow the IFPA to make amendments to its claim after such a length of time.
Ms Justice Susan Denham said that those who make charges must state at an early stage what those charges are and on what facts they are based. Extensive delay should not be condoned and the court should not facilitate the service of defective documents. The court allowed the appeal and refused to extend the time within which the IFPA could serve its statement of claim.