Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I do not want to drag this out but I want to give some additional rationale, should it be required. At present, if a planning authority, including the board, or, where relevant, the State, succeeds in defending a judicial review challenge and the High Court certifies that it may be appealed, the appeal then goes to the Court of Appeal. If the planning authority or the State succeeds again in the Court of Appeal, the applicant or the objector can then apply to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. There are all of those different stages, all the way up. Given the criteria for allowing an appeal from the High Court in the first place are very similar, although not identical, to the criteria that must be met for an appeal to the Supreme Court, leave to appeal is normally granted by the Supreme Court in these cases and would only be refused in exceptional ones. This means that, notwithstanding having succeeded at High Court level in defeating a judicial review application, the ultimate resolution of the case could take another two or three years in the Court of Appeal and subsequently in the Supreme Court.

That is the reality of it. It is obvious to most of us that this has adverse delay consequences for the proposed developments in question, hence the streamlining. The amendment to section 50A makes provision for the planning authority and the State, or any party to the appeal, to apply directly to the Supreme Court in the event that the High Court gives an applicant leave to appeal, so they are then leapfrogged. This would mean the Supreme Court would then hear the appeal, directly bypassing the Court of Appeal.

The introduction of these changes proposed in the Bill would have the effect of significantly reducing the time for the ultimate disposal of the litigation, although, obviously, it does not say what the judgment would be. If the judicial case is refused, it would enable relevant projects to proceed earlier than otherwise would have been the case. In my view, to repeat, this is a very important streamlining provision because court delays can impose significant costs or, in some instances, even inhibit viability. Some objectors to developments can be very conscious of these delays as well, and if we are all honest with each other, we know that too.

It is appropriate in this legislation. The judicial review reform Bill to which Deputy Ó Broin refers will go to pre-legislative scrutiny and its general scheme was approved by the previous Government as well. This Bill is the right place for this measure. It needs to be done, hence this section is included in the Bill.