The Slane Bypass Judicial hearing concludes in the High Court

The Slane Bypass Judicial hearing has concluded at Dublin High Court today (Friday 16th January) with Judge David Nolan to give his judgment on a later date.

A leading county Meath barrister, Mr John Rogers SC launched a legal challenge against Meath County Council's plans for the 3.5km bypass of Slane.

The application came before Mr Justice David Nolan who reserved his judgment following completion of the judicial review sought by Mr Rogers who was represented in court today by Michael Cush, a fellow senior counsel, who was instructed by Gabriel Toolan solicitors.

Most of the evidence presented to Judge Nolan was in the written form of sworn affidavits followed by legal argument and submissions on behalf of Mr Rogers, Meath County Council, and An Coimisiún Pleanála.

The project includes a 3.5km dual carriageway around Slane with a combined footway/cycleway, a 258-metre-long bridge over the River Boyne, and a number of public realm enhancements within Slane village. The scheme also includes improved traffic management measures and works on the N51 between the proposed bypass and the centre of the village.

Slane residents have lived with the trauma of horrific crashes happening on their doorsteps for many years - the 23 white crosses on the bridge is testament to that, marking the number of fatalities over the past quarter of a century.

Opening the case yesterday, Mr Cush, outlining the views of Mr Rogers, said the location was assessed and an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) was made by Ms Harrington who is an expert ecologist but a hydro geologist or hydrologist was required. Another ecological expert examined the report and said no amendments were to be made to the report which the plaintiff suggests is the same error.

Mr Cush argued on the basis she is not an expert in hydro geology or hydrology and "on its face there is no assessment" due to the lack of expert in this field reviewing the report.

Judge Nolan said this case involves a highly expert area and when reading the report "I didn't understand a word of it". The judge also said evidence of actual flooding was brought before the court in a "delicate habitat" which would mean an expert in this field is even more necessary.

Judge Nolan asked Barrister for Meath County Council SC Esmonde Keane instructed by Regan McEntee Solicitors and Barrister SC Fintan Valentine on behalf of An Coimisiún Pleanála instructed by Philip Lee Solicitors what was preventing the judge from asking for qualifications from the commission on the members of the Board who assessed the EIAR. This comes after Mr Valentine argued yesterday (Thursday 15th January) that no evidence was given regarding the qualifications and expertise of the two other members of the board who received the report from the inspector. He said the applicant, Mr Rogers, is responsible for gathering this information, not the defence.

The court heard the applicant asked for qualifications on the members but this was two days before the hearing date and Mr Valentine said this should have been asked for from an earlier date. He also said the European Commission accepts you can become an expert in a field through years of experience reviewing (EIAR) on the subject.

Mr Valentine said the pleas were made on "bare assumption" and, due to the lack of evidence on the board's expertise, the judge cant conclude that the board lacked it in the field of hydrology or hydro geology.

Both Senior Counsel said he can ask but this differs from expertise as it excludes experience and asking for their experience may require a number of affidavits. Mr Valentine also told the court "the fact the court needs that" is a failure of Mr Rogers. The judge also added that requesting this would "cause havoc".

Mr Cush said the public bodies should not have a "deny everything" attitude, which he says both bodies do in this case, and if they refuse to engage with Mr Rogers then his responsibility to get information on the board's expertise is no longer on him. He said the judge has to ask himself "has Mr Rogers done enough?"