The High Court yesterday refused to extend a stay until tomorrow on its order permitting The Irish Times to publish the name of the pregnancy counselling agency involved in the Baby A case.
Mrs Justice McGuinness had on Tuesday night granted Dr Michael Forde, SC, for the agency, a stay until 2 p.m. yesterday to facilitate a possible appeal to the Supreme Court. When she was told at 2 p.m. that appeal documents had not been lodged with the Supreme Court, she refused his application for an extension of the stay until tomorrow afternoon.
Mrs Justice McGuinness said it was not the place of the agency or its two principals to try and prevent their names being disclosed to protect the children in the proceedings. "The children are no longer in their custody and they no longer have any duty to protect them," she said.
Mrs Justice McGuinness said Dr Forde did not represent the interests of the children in the proceedings, and far from it. On anyone's reading of the judgment of Ms Justice Laffoy in the original Baby A case, it was clear his clients had acted in a way which was inimical to the interests of the children and their mothers.
Dr Forde had told her that if she refused to extend the stay, he would no longer have a right of appeal. The judge said she was not taking away that right. While the name of the agency might be published, it did not mean he could not apply to the Supreme Court and appeal against her decision.
She sat late on Tuesday night because she considered the application was urgent and should be brought to an end as quickly as possible. She granted a stay to afford Dr Forde an opportunity in late evening to attend the office of the Supreme Court for purposes of appealing her decision or seeking a stay on her order.
Yesterday morning there had been nothing to prevent somebody who wished to appeal as a matter of urgency and seek a further stay from notifying the Supreme Court or to prevent them lodging papers of appeal with the higher court.
Mrs Justice McGuinness said Dr Forde should have known it was necessary to lodge papers and no attempt had been made to do this. With regard to her order of Tuesday night, her registrar, Mr Chris Lehane, an extremely conscientious registrar, had stayed on after the court to draft the order and had left a message for yesterday's registrar, Ms Sarah Mc Quade, to say it was a matter of urgency and if somebody had asked for the order she could sign it on his behalf.
Ms McQuade had informed the court before 11 a.m. that this was the case and the court had confirmed she could sign and issue it. There had been no attempt made to ask Ms McQuade for the order until lunchtime yesterday. If Dr Forde had wished, she would have been prepared to dictate her judgment and present it for typing. All of this could have been done. She said that to direct an accusation of inefficiency against her registrars was something of which she took a dim view. Dr Forde's application for an extension to the 2 p.m. stay was opposed by Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for The Irish Times, and by Mr Felix McEnroy SC, for the Eastern Health Board.
Mr McEnroy said his client was in court representing the interests of the children and wanted finality to the proceedings as soon as was reasonably possible. He said he had been handed a draft document earlier containing a single ground of appeal against the order of the High Court.
It advanced an argument by a commercial agency purporting to advance the best interests of a minor whom Dr Forde did not represent.