Two TDs have applied to the Supreme Court to hear appeals over the rejection of their legal challenges to the attendance of super junior ministers at meetings of Government.
A three-judge High Court last December dismissed the challenges by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly and People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy. They were subsequently awarded 50 per cent of their legal costs against the State because of the importance, novelty and complexity of the constitutional issues raised.
The TDs brought separate but similar challenges, arguing article 28 of Bunreacht na hÉireann limits the number of government members to 15 and the attendance of super junior ministers at Cabinet meetings goes against this.
Ministers of State attending Cabinet – or super junior ministers – are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Taoiseach. They participate in Government meetings, but do not vote.
READ MORE
The High Court, comprising court president David Barniville and Judges Siobhán Phelan and Conleth Brady, held no provision of the Constitution is breached by the attendance and participation of the junior ministers at Cabinet meetings.
Both TDs have now applied to the Supreme Court to hear appeals against the High Court decision on grounds including that it was based on errors of fact and of law. They are also appealing the costs orders, arguing they are entitled to their full costs.
The State has six weeks to give its response to the applications.
A panel of Supreme Court judges will then meet in due course to decide whether or not to hear a “leapfrog” appeal, one directly to the top court, bypassing the Court of Appeal.
Before agreeing to hear an appeal, a panel must decide that an appellant has raised legal issues of general public importance or that an appeal is necessary in the interests of justice.
The appellants argue their appeals raise significant points of law relating to the composition and functioning of government and that the determination of these issues is a matter of considerable urgency.
A leapfrog appeal is sought on grounds of urgency and because, it is argued, the issues will in any event ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Both appellants have also filed appeals with the Court of Appeal, but those will only proceed before that court if the Supreme Court refuses to hear a leapfrog appeal.
