Tara & the M3

meath | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis

Tuesday August 16, 2005 01:03

by spokesman - Tara SOS

Do the Gael have any recourse in the legal systems of the 'Ireland Inc'?

In the Supreme Court on the 21st December 1972, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh delivered judgment on the legality of the compulsory purchase by the State of a site below the four hundred feet contour lines on Tara. In the judgement, he stated: 'the Hill of Tara is properly to be regarded as a single unified site and not a series of separate archaeological monuments.'

Tara's Layers

A Chara,

In the Supreme Court on the 21st December 1972, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh delivered judgment on the legality of the compulsory purchase by the State of a site below the four hundred feet contour lines on Tara. In the judgement, he stated: 'the Hill of Tara is properly to be regarded as a single unified site and not a series of separate archaeological monuments.'

During proceedings, Professor Ruaidhrí de Valera had described Tara as 'the focus of Celtic times', and added that 'one would expect important findings on almost any part of the Hill of Tara, and from the historical accounts of it, it seemed very likely that traces of previous occupational use would be found in most if not all parts of the hill.'

The defendants in the case, the Commissioners for Public Works in Ireland had stated: 'Tara was a complex but unified site and not merely a site of royal settlement but probably an extension of the grave system more extensively investigated on the Boyne. The burden of the evidence showed the importance of the whole site, with the Hill of Tara which could not be chopped up.'

In judgement, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh stated: ' The expression 'national monument' means a monument or the remains of a monument the preservation of which is a matter of national importance by reason of the historical, architectural, traditional, artistic, or archaeological interest'. 'A monument, among other things, is anything that by its survival commemorates a person, action or event.'

Continuing, he stated: 'The word 'monument' is not defined in the strict
sense: it is stated that it 'includes' certain things. It does not have to be of archaeological interest; historical or traditional interest will suffice.' In closing Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh asked: 'Why, then, could a place or hill , not of itself satisfy the definition of monument?'

This Supreme Court judgement and the testimony of Professor de Valera have a direct relevance to any prospective legal challenges. It suggests that the proposed route of the M3 would fail a judicial review. An alternative route, 2.5km shorter and 5km away to the west of Tara is available. This alternative solution should be pursued now to ensure the immediate delivery of the M3.

Like many others in Meath that would use a new M3, I see this as the best way forward - preservation and progress are not mutually exclusive.