A5 WTC (New Road from Aughnacloy to Derry)

[Tony Baloney]

Where does the appeal process end? Is it only the Supreme Court can say enough is enough and let it proceed, or alternatively bury the entire project?

[93-DY-SAM]

Where does the appeal process end? Is it only the Supreme Court can say enough is enough and let it proceed, or alternatively bury the entire project?

Exactly. This will just lead to another appeal, which will be countered with another appeal. And so the cycle continues. It's a delaying tactic more than anything, and they have managed to delay it for 20 years between the lot of them.

When does this madness end, and who is funding all these cases? How much of this is coming out of the public purse? If the cost were put onto the losing party, it would soon bring an end to this. Get the fecking road started!

[RadioGAAGAA]

I *believe* there were wider moves afoot (not just limited to A5, but to all big infrastructure projects) to try and force all appeals to be aggregated into one.

As you both say, this stringing things out is a complete waste of everyone's time - except for the judges and lawyers.

I'll go see if I can dig up a reference to it.


edit: I think this is it, and its not quite what I stated. Indeed how useful it'll be is a point for debate.

You'd think it would be pretty straightforward to get a system whereby all challenges must be submitted within X months of project launch. After that, unless there is significant new evidence (which can be heard only without a halt to the project prior to any decision) then it proceeds on the judgement made.

[trileacman]

Can the legal heads here explain is there any comeuppance for the previous judges who got the decision on the A5 wrong? I mean if a doctor or engineer made a mistake and it cost the state 200 million I'm sure there's a chance he'd be in front of a disciplinary board. Does this happen for judges who make a mistake in a decision?

[David McKeown]

Can the legal heads here explain is there any comeuppance for the previous judges who got the decision on the A5 wrong? I mean if a doctor or engineer made a mistake and it cost the state 200 million I'm sure there's a chance he'd be in front of a disciplinary board. Does this happen for judges who make a mistake in a decision?

We have an appellate Court structure for a reason and most decisions are not black and white. Often Judges will get it wrong it's not an exact science. So no there will be no comeuppance unless there's bad faith which there is no suggestion of here.

[David McKeown]

Where does the appeal process end? Is it only the Supreme Court can say enough is enough and let it proceed, or alternatively bury the entire project?

At this stage the A5 coalition have 3 options. One apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. My understanding is that has only once been granted by the Court of Appeal.

2. Apply for permission to appeal directly to the Supreme Court by arguing in writing that there has been an error of an arguable point of law — it must be a genuine legal issue with a properly arguable basis. The Supreme Court is not ordinarily concerned simply with correcting an erroneous application of settled law.
General public importance — the point must matter beyond the individual case: for example, uncertainty in the law, conflicting authorities, an issue affecting a significant class of cases, or an important constitutional/public-law question.
It ought to be considered now — even an important legal question may not warrant permission if the case is an unsuitable vehicle, the issue is premature, or another case is likely to resolve it more appropriately.

3. Accept defeat

Having not read this Judgement I imagine that the farmers will seek permission and that will be on the basis of the approach to the differing statutory aims and the conflict created by the Climate change Act which is a legally novel point.

Hard to know if that gets permission but it might well

[RadioGAAGAA]

Having not read this Judgement I imagine that the farmers will seek permission and that will be on the basis of the approach to the differing statutory aims and the conflict created by the Climate change Act which is a legally novel point.

Hard to know if that gets permission but it might well

Is that not starting to enter the territory of the judical department dictating to legatislative bodies how they deliver overarching targets?


Telling them what they've done is insufficient and to to go back and sharpen their pencils is one thing. Telling them what the pencil should write is quite another.


I'd like to say if it did go that far, the SC would lay out a framework for what is (and by implication, what isn't) deemed sufficient to meet Section 52. Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be how the system usually works.

[David McKeown]

Having not read this Judgement I imagine that the farmers will seek permission and that will be on the basis of the approach to the differing statutory aims and the conflict created by the Climate change Act which is a legally novel point.

Hard to know if that gets permission but it might well

Is that not starting to enter the territory of the judical department dictating to legatislative bodies how they deliver overarching targets?


Telling them what they've done is insufficient and to to go back and sharpen their pencils is one thing. Telling them what the pencil should write is quite another.


I'd like to say if it did go that far, the SC would lay out a framework for what is (and by implication, what isn't) deemed sufficient to meet Section 52. Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be how the system usually works.

Maybe I wasn't clear apologies. What I imagine the strongest ground for permission might be (on the basis of me once reading the original judgement and only getting snippets of today's) is the Farmers may argue that the approach taken by the COA to conflicts between large infrastructure projects and the Climate Change Act was wrong. They may also argue that given how recent the Act is and its relative future importance that the Supreme Court should provide guidance on same.

I'm not suggesting the COA were wrong just it strikes me that may be the most obvious ground of challenge and the most likely to way to meet the public importance aspect of the test for permission.

[Orior]

I need this type of info for a similar project.

1. Has the route been finalised?
2. Has compensation for landowners already been agreed?
3. Is there a standard rate?

[marty34]

After the Drumcree and now this court judgement, all I know is the the law is an ass.


Surely common sense is the best law.

[Armagh18]

After the Drumcree and now this court judgement, all I know is the the law is an ass.


Surely common sense is the best law.

Except it isn't that common by the looks of things..

[Tony Baloney]

I need this type of info for a similar project.

1. Has the route been finalised?
2. Has compensation for landowners already been agreed?
3. Is there a standard rate?

Fairly sure there is no standard CPO rate per acre as it was previously stated individual pieces of land would be priced based on the quality of the land. I'm hoping that process is already done as that'll add another few years onto the project!

[David McKeown]

I need this type of info for a similar project.

1. Has the route been finalised?
2. Has compensation for landowners already been agreed?
3. Is there a standard rate?

Fairly sure there is no standard CPO rate per acre as it was previously stated individual pieces of land would be priced based on the quality of the land. I'm hoping that process is already done as that'll add another few years onto the project!

Did they not give back a lot of the vested land after the first instance judgement ?

[Hereiam]

Yes, land has all been returned to landowners for the second time

[marty34]

Will it be built by 2032?

Anybody hazard a guess?