High Court orders migrants to vacate charity's building they took over

The High Court judge said he would grant the order but put a stay on it for seven days. File picture

The High Court has granted an injunction requiring that a number of people who have taken over a building in Dublin where homes for older people are to be provided by a charity must vacate within seven days.

The Cabhrú Housing Association was granted the order after the court heard that on May 12 last, a number of “unknown persons” broke into the premises at James McSweeney House, Berkeley Street, Dublin 7.

The building was vacated three years ago for the purpose of redevelopment by Cabhrú to provide 35 units for older citizens of Dublin. The redevelopment was delayed by the pandemic and increased building costs, but Cabhrú said construction is due to start next year.

Concerns

The court heard there were serious concerns about safety in the building given that gas and water had been cut off and the only electrical connection in place was for the alarm. The fire alarm also appeared to have been cut, Cabhrú said.

The case came before Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy on Thursday when Padraig Drummond appeared on behalf of the "persons unknown" defendants. He said for the past week he had been advocating on behalf of 46 migrants who are in the building and that he was CEO of a group called Streetlink Homeless Support.

His group has been in direct contact with Integration Minister Roderic O’Gorman and he was seeking a protection order to be put in place for the building given migrant protests around the country and the fact that there have been threats made by right-wing agitators online.

He said while he had nothing to do with “its acquisition”, he was there to ensure welfare checks with the migrants living there and to ensure there is power and running water. He had tried to engage with the representative of Cabhrú in relation to the fire alarm and as a result he had asked those in occupation to put in place individuals on each balcony to “fire watch”.

'Amicable resolution'

He quoted from a recent High Court decision stating the State was obliged to provide material reception conditions for migrants. This should be what is done before requiring the migrants in this building to vacate, he said. His group were “seeking an amicable resolution for the 46 people there who are in 20 apartments and they are comfortable there”.

He said: “When it was made public in the State media (pointing to the newspaper reporter), right-wing agitators started agitating online and we now have a situation where Roderic O’Gorman said it will be be two weeks before he has accommodation when they are already accommodated in a State-owned building.”

He also said he had been in court three or four times when housing activists took over buildings and the State had sent in gardaí with a helicopter to evict them and if that happens in this case, it will not just be activists being evicted but asylum seekers.

Andrew Whelan BL, for Cabhrú, said his client was a private charity and not the State, who were providing homes for elderly people.

He had every sympathy for the plight of the homeless, but this was not the way to go about getting accommodation for them. Mr Whelan also said there were serious safety concerns, that those in occupation had barricaded themselves into the property and there was clearly a trespass.

Ruling

Mr Justice Mulcahy said he had every sympathy for what Mr Drummond was trying to do and even greater sympathy for the 46 migrants because they have nowhere else to go.

But he was bound to say that taking over a private building from a charity, and where there are legitimate safety concerns and where there is no legal entitlement, other than a moral entitlement to do so, he found the case had been made out by the plaintiff. Where there is a trespass the appropriate remedy is an injunction, he said.

He asked Mr Whelan if his client could provide a period of time within which the building could be vacated. Following a short break, Mr Whelan said such a decision would have to be taken by the Cabhrú board in consultation with its insurers. The judge said he would grant the order but put a stay on it for seven days and the case will return before him in a week.

When the judge asked Mr Drummond to “do whatever you can do”, Mr Drummond replied: “I have nothing to do with those who have taken control of the building, I have no control over it”.