The drug treatment centre in Pearse Street, Dublin, was described in the High Court yesterday as "a ghastly, festering sore". The court was told that business owners in the area want addict numbers to be limited.
Mr Aongus O Brolchain SC, for a number of Pearse Street traders, applied to Mr Justice McCracken for an interlocutory injunction against the Drug Treatment Centre Board which runs the clinic at Trinity Court. Judgment was reserved.
Counsel said his clients wanted a order, until the trial of the action, to keep the numbers of addicts to their present level.
Mr O Brolchain said the traders claimed that none of their concerns had been taken on board and the excuse being made was that it was central and accessible from the north and south city.
There was now an indication that the drug board intended to increase the number of addicts using the premises. Trinity Court itself was a fortress on the inside rather than on the outside, Mr O Brolchain said. Addicts were only allowed enter in regulated numbers.
Because there were such large numbers, drug dealers were now attending, he said. Traders were claiming the drug board was responsible for creating a public nuisance. The board had a statutory right to run this centre but not to run it negligently.
The court would be satisfied the drug board had taken no reasonable steps to protect the traders, counsel said.
Closed-circuit television had been installed after the traders issued legal proceedings, but that was not adequate. It only shifted the difficulty from one part of the street to another.
Mr O Brolchain said the traders were effectively under siege in their premises. They had been attacked with syringes and subjected to intimidatory actions. At all times the drug board claimed its intention was to have localised clincs in the city, but the Pearse Street centre had now become a "come-all" centre, he continued.
Damages would not be an adequate remedy. The traders were in fear of losing their businesses. One had closed and others had suffered severely. This was not a question of money but of protecting businesses, customers and staff. Alternative clinics could be set up around the city.
Mr James Nugent SC, for the centre, said that not only had they a right but they had an obligation to run this treatment clinic and to run it in this particular area.
He did not know of a single, reasonable person in the country who would like having a drug treatment centre near them. His clients accepted that. But like all other unsociable problems the centre had to be somewhere. The records did not bear out the claim that there had been an increased use of the centre, he said. The hearing continues.