The Supreme Court yesterday queried why a High Court case about the constitutionality of an Act relating to the Great Blasket Island had lasted more than 50 days. The taxpayer will have to meet the bill for the case, estimated at more than £1 million. In the course of an appeal by the State against the High Court's finding that the Blascaod Mor National Parks Act 1989 was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court was told yesterday the High Court hearing involved 12 days of evidence and 40 days of legal submissions.
When told that 10-12 days were taken up with legal submissions regarding an Act of 1919, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, asked how an argument about the constitutionality of that Act could take so long. "Have people gone mad?" he asked.
Mrs Justice Denham said it was "deeply disturbing", in relation to the costs implications, that a case could last so long. Mr Justice Keane said it meant much court time was being absorbed by a single case and other litigants would have to wait.
Mrs Justice Denham said there was a practice in other countries where counsel reduced their arguments to submissions which clarified the net issues in the cases. This meant much less court time was taken up with legal submissions. A situation where so much time could be taken up was "tot ally unsatisfactory", she added.
Mr Michael Forde SC, who acted in the High Court hearing for a number of people who own the Great Blasket, said the case involved 10 or 12 legal issues, each of which could constitute a single High Court case. He also said some of the evidence from State witnesses was tendered in Irish, which had lengthened the case.
In his judgment on the High Court case delivered in March 1998, Mr Justice Budd declared as unconstitutional the Blascaod Mor National Parks Act, introduced in 1989 by the then Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, in his capacity as minister for the Gaeltacht. The Act was aimed at developing the island into a national park through acquiring most of it by means of a compulsory purchase order.
Mr Peter Callery, a solicitor, from Dingle, Co Kerry; his broth er James, Elphin, Co Roscom mon; Ms Kay Brooks, widow of a former US diplomat, and Mr Matthias Jauch, Mercier Park, Turner's Cross, Cork, between them own 17/25ths of the island through a company, An Blascaod Mor Teo. They had challenged the constitutionality of the Act in the High Court. The State's appeal against the finding of unconstitutionality opened on Tuesday and concluded yesterday with the Supreme Court reserving judgment.
In submissions, Mr Forde said the Callery family had an outstanding record in relation to the preservation of heritage property. Much of the money for the preservation of Strokestown Park House and the National Famine Museum had come from them. The case was about taking the Blasket is land from people who had an outstanding record regarding heritage. It would be different were they "Philistines". The simple solution, if the State wished to buy it, would have been a letter from the Office of Public Works or the Department of the Gaeltacht.
It was clear from correspondence that in January 1989 the OPW knew nothing of a Bill to acquire the island compulsorily, Mr Forde said. A private company, the Blasket Island Foundation, had through lobbying secured an Act to take the island from the Callerys and others. It was clear the 1989 Act was targeted at the plaintiffs.
If there was such a general measure to nationalise all heritage property in the State, this would be strenuously resisted. Mr George Brady SC, for the State, said the island was acquired as part of Ireland's culture and heritage and the acquisition was justified under the social and cultural provisions of the Constitution.
Part of our history, tradition and culture was reflected in microcosm in the Great Blasket. To conserve such a historic park, it should be in public rather than private ownership. It would have been inconsistent, however, to seek to acquire those parts of the island which were owned by people who still had direct links to the island itself. The discrimination in that regard was justified.