The State is opposing an application by lawyers for the “hooded men” for their legal costs of an application aimed at compelling the Government decide whether to ask the European Court of Human Rights to rule they were tortured when interned in 1971.
Earlier this month, the Government said it will ask the European court to revise its controversial 1978 judgment over the alleged use of torture techniques by the British Army in Northern Ireland on the men who were hooded for long periods and subject to various sensory deprivation practices.
The men, known as the "hooded men", and their families, wanted the Government pursue the matter in its case against the UK government before the ECHR after new information emerged in an RTÉ programme entitled The Torture Files.
The broadcast, aired last June revealed evidence produced to the ECHR by the British in its defence to the Irish Government’s case was deliberately misleading.
The men initiated High Court proceedings aimed at compelling the Irish Government make a decision on whether it would seek to revise the ECHR’s 1978 finding that the men’s treatment in 1971, while inhumane and degrading, did not constitute torture.
The deadline for bringing a revision application to the European court was December 4th. Last week, the Government announced it would apply to the court to revise its ruling.
When the matter returned yesterday before the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, Ronan Lavery, for the men, said they were seeking their legal costs from the State.
Michael McDowell, for the State, said while his side were not seeking their costs, they were opposed to any order compelling the State pay the men’s legal costs.
The men’s application, which became moot after the Government’s decision last week, was “doomed to failure” and could never have succeeded had it gone to trial, counsel argued.
Any decision on revisiting the 1978 ECHR ruling was for the Government to make and was not something that could be influenced through the courts, counsel said.
The men were informed by a government official on November 21st that the Government, which had spent some time examining the new evidence following the RTÉ broadcast, would make a decision on the matter.
In reply, Mr Lavery said the men were never informed whether the Government would make a decision in time.
Shortly before bringing their proceedings, the men asked for a decision to be made but got no response until after their action had come before the court, he said.
Mr Justice Kearns said important issues had been raised in the costs application and further submissions were required before he could decide the matter.
He adjourned the issue to next month and told the sides it would be preferable if they arrived at some arrangement between themselves on costs.