The 13-year-old pregnant rape victim is now free to travel to England for an abortion after her parents decided not to appeal against last Friday's High Court ruling allowing her to go. On Friday, after the judgment, the Eastern Health Board gave an undertaking that the girl would not be taken out of the State pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, when it became clear there would be no appeal, the High Court gave the final order releasing the EHB from the undertaking. This meant that the EHB was free to take the girl to England for an abortion.
The Supreme Court had earlier been told by the counsel for the parents of the girl that they would not be appealing. The High Court had ruled that the girl could go to England for the termination.
In the Supreme Court at 11 a.m. yesterday Mr Iarfhlaith O'Neill SC, for the parents, said he had received instructions that there would be no appeal.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton said Mr O'Neill had telephoned him at 7.40 a.m. yesterday, to say that Mr O'Neill had received instructions to appeal the High Court finding. The court was now being informed by Mr O'Neill that there would be no appeal.
There was "so much fluctuation" in this case that the court considered it appropriate that the full five-judge court would sit at 1 p.m. to "ensure that all parties have the opportunity to consider once and for all" whether they wished to appeal. The court would decide and seek assurances from the parties involved.
Mr Michael McDowell SC, for the Eastern Health Board, said the board had received a fax on Sunday, purporting to come from the girl's parents, stating that they had no solicitors acting for them and they were dealing with this matter themselves.
Mr O'Neill said he was instructed not to proceed with an appeal and he apologised for the inconvenience caused to the court.
The Chief Justice asked if the court could take it that it was definite there would be no appeal. Mr O'Neill said his instructions, received half-an-hour before the hearing, were that his clients did not wish to appeal.
Mr McDowell said an undertaking on behalf of the EHB had been given to Mr Justice Geoghegan last Friday that the child would not travel pending the outcome of an appeal. The board was now asking that it be excused from that undertaking.
The Chief Justice said that last Thursday the court was told that irrespective of what decision was made by the High Court, and no matter how cogent the High Court judge's reasons for reaching his decision, there would be an appeal. Arrangements were made and the Supreme Court office was informed at 4 p.m. on Friday that there would be no appeal.
Consequently, the arrangements made by the court were cancelled. That was the position over the weekend until Mr O'Neill had the courtesy to telephone him at 7.40 a.m. that he had received instructions to appeal.
When the court resumed at 1 p.m. Mr O'Neill told the full five-judge court that the position was unchanged and the two appellants had both confirmed that they were not instructing him to appeal. They had indicated they were issuing their instructions in writing.
The Chief Justice said Mr O'Neill was satisfied he was not going to appeal. He took it that all other parties were in a similar position.
Mr McDowell asked that the undertaking given by the EHB be released.
The Chief Justice said that in his view, as the undertaking had been given to Mr Justice Geoghegan in the High Court and as it was now clear that there would be no appeal, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to release it.
He said Mr McDowell should go back to the trial judge at 2 p.m., indicating that there would be no appeal in the matter.
In the High Court at 2 p.m. before Mr Justice Geoghegan, Mr McDowell asked for the undertaking to be released. Mr McDowell said Mr O'Neill would not be present in court or make any submissions. He said Mr O'Neill was instructed that he had nothing further to add.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said he thought the legal teams were in the Supreme Court at 1 p.m. Was not Mr O'Neill there? Where was he now?
Mr McDowell said Mr O'Neill told him that he could inform the judge that he had no objection to the application for release of the undertaking.
The judge said that it was just that it was such a serious matter, he was surprised that neither Mr O'Neill nor the rest of the legal team were present. Mr O'Neill must have been given clear instructions by the parents in the Supreme Court.
Mr McDowell said the order he wanted was to be absolved from the undertaking.
Mr Gerard Durcan SC, for the girl, said he would support the application on the basis of the evidence which would appear to be in his client's interest.
Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for the Attorney General, said they had no objection.
The judge said he found it unsatisfactory that Mr O'Neill was not present. He would make the order, however, and release the undertaking.