A Supreme Court decision that a minister has no power to make amended regulations under the Animal Remedies Act, 1993, that have statutory effect is expected to lead to many regulations being struck down and prosecutions consequently being abandoned.
The unanimous judgment of the five judges was delivered yesterday in what was regarded as a test case for a large number of prosecutions in the District Court which had been adjourned pending the outcome of the case.
After Ms Justice Susan Denham delivered the judgment, the court adjourned the matter to the next law term to allow consideration of what final orders should be made.
The judgment addressed a legal point raised during a successful challenge by two Mayo pharmacists and a Wexford horse breeder to the legality of amended regulations by the minister for agriculture under section 8 of the Act. They had been charged with offences under the amended regulations. In her judgment, Ms Justice Denham said the issue before the court was whether regulations made under the 1993 Act could be amended by the minister in further regulations under the same Act or could be amended only by a law of the Oireachtas.
The case arose after the minister made regulations in 1996, 1998 and 2002 which amended regulations under the 1993 Act to give effect to various EC directives.
Because the European Communities Act, 1972, provided for a large volume of EC law to be incorporated into Irish law, ministers of state were given specific power to make regulations, including provisions repealing, amending or applying other law, the judge noted. Under the 1972 Act, such regulations had statutory effect.
In contrast, section 8 of the Animal Remedies Act provided that the minister for agriculture may, after consultation, make regulations relating to animal remedies.
There was no specific reference to a power of amending other law as was found in the 1972 Act.