Michael Lynn SC

Michael Lynn is a Senior Counsel with a wide-ranging practice in both criminal and civil law. He has extensive experience in public law and has acted in many leading human rights cases. He has represented applicants in the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Committee Against Torture, and appeared regularly in all domestic courts, including the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Central Criminal Court and Special Criminal Court.

He is a member of the Bar Council’s Human Rights Committee and is the Bar Council’s representative on the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE)’s Human Rights Committee. He is a former committee member of the Irish Criminal Bar Association. He is a member of the Examination Board of the Honorable Society of the King’s Inns, and also lectures there. He is a member of the Advisory Group to an on-going study on ‘Meeting the Legal Needs of Children in Ireland’.

He has extensive experience in rule of law projects internationally and has worked with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute in Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, Georgia, Azerbaijan and with the Palestine Bar Association. He has a Diploma in International Human Rights Law (2005, International Bar Association and College of Law of England and Wales).

He became a Senior Counsel in 2014. He is a member of the Bar of England and Wales (Middle Temple, 1996) and the Bar of Northern Ireland (2017). He graduated from Trinity College, Dublin in 1983.

He is an accredited Mediator, having completed the King’s Inns Advanced Diploma in Mediation. He is a member of the Mediators Institute of Ireland. He welcomes opportunities to act as a mediator and can be contacted directly for that purpose.

Michael has appeared in many cases which have led to statutory or administrative reform, or to significant developments in the law. He has 80 reported judgments, most of which are in the area of public law. Examples are set out below.

Administrative law

B v. Child and Family Agency [2025] IESC 2. For the plaintiff child. In respect of a public body, where it is alleged that it is acting in contempt of court, it is appropriate in the first instance to seek a declaration that the body is in contempt, rather than attachment and committal of an official. The Agency had failed to comply with a special care order made by the High Court in respect of the child.

U.M. (a minor) v. Minister for Foreign Affairs [2023] 1 ILRM 24. For the applicant child. In interpreting a statutory provision, if it is to have retrospective effect that should be clear from the wording.

A.P. v. Minister for Justice [2019] 3 I.R. 317; [2019] 2 ILRM 377. For the applicant. It concerned fair procedures in cases concerning national security, and led to the establishment of a Single Person Committee to provide an independent review of material which the Department of Justice withholds on the grounds of national security.

Clare County Council v. McDonagh [2022] 2 I.R. 122, [2022] 1 ILRM 353. For the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as amicus curiae. A leading judgment by the Supreme Court on Article 40.5 of the Constitution, and the primacy of the Constitution over the ECHR in assessing fundamental rights.

Mallak v. Minister for Justice [2012] 3 I.R. 297; [2013] 1 I.L.R.M. 73. For the applicant. A seminal Supreme Court judgment on the duty to give reasons, even in cases where the decision-maker has an ‘absolute discretion’.

O’Donnell v. South Dublin County Council [2011] 3 I.R. 417. For the plaintiffs. The first finding of a breach of section 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 by a local authority.

Mental health law

A.V. v. Minister for Health and others. For the plaintiff, in a constitutional challenge to the existing system of wardship. It led to the repeal of the Marriage of Lunatics Act 1811 and the coming into force of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, which is now phasing out wardship.

AB v. Clinical Director of St. Loman’s Hospital [2018] 3 I.R. 710; [2018] 2 ILRM 242. For the applicant, a man with an intellectual disability who was inappropriately detained in an acute hospital ward. The Court of Appeal held that section 15(3) of the Mental Health Act 2001 was unconstitutional, leading to legislative reform and a requirement of more frequent reviews of detention.

S.M. v. Mental Health Commission [2009] 3 I.R. 188, [2009] 2 ILRM 127. For the applicant, leading to emergency legislation being passed in respect of the involuntary detention of patients on mental health grounds.

H.S.E. v. M.X. [2012] 1 I.R. 81. For the respondent, a woman detained and treated in the Central Mental Hospital, leading to a judgment recognising personal capacity rights under the Constitution, with reference to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Child law

MMcD v. Child and Family Agency [2024] IESC 6. For the child’s parents. The Supreme Court held that the Agency was under a statutory duty to apply for a special care order where it was of the view that the statutory criteria for such an order were met.

In Re JJ [2022] 3 I.R. 1. For the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as amicus curiae. The Supreme Court delivered a seminal judgment on Article 42A of the Constitution and the wardship of children.

Child and Family Agency v. A and C [2018] 3 I.R. 531; [2018] 2 ILRM 277. For the child, who was HIV positive, arguing successfully that his right to confidentiality as a patient prohibited disclosure of his medical condition.

Child and Family Agency and B v. Adoption Authority of Ireland and C and Z [2023] IESC 12. For the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as amicus curiae, in which the Supreme Court considered whether an adoption order should be made in favour of a long-term foster mother over the natural mother.

Le J. v. A.T. [2021] IECA 16 June 2021. For the mother, in a Hague Convention on child abduction case in which the Court of Appeal reviewed the case law on habitual residence.

XY v. Health Service Executive  [2013] 1 I.R. 592, [2014] 1 ILRM 170, and H.S.E. v. J.M. and R.P. [2013] 1 I.R. 574, [2013] I.L.R.M. 305. For the applicants, in cases which concerned whether there were adequate procedural safeguards where a child was detained and orders were sought to allow forcible treatment.

Oguekwe v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] 3 I.R. 795. For the child and his parents, in a lead case on the rights of Irish citizen children to have their foreign national parents reside with them in Ireland, and the approach to be followed by decision-makers.

Victims and redress

Lee v. Minister for Children, Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General. For a number of applicants who had been placed in Mother and Baby homes, in  successful High Court challenges to the report of the Commission of Investigation published in January 2021. This included Philomena Lee, whose life story is the subject of the film, Philomena.

Coppin v. Ireland, Communication No. 879/2018. For the applicant, a woman who was placed in a Mother and Baby Home as a child, and forced to work in a Magdalen Laundry, in her case to the UN Committee Against Torture, asserting violations of Articles 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 16 of the Convention against Torture.

J.G.H. v. Residential Institutions Review Committee [2018] 3 I.R. 68. For the applicant, who was held by the Supreme Court to have been unlawfully excluded from the Residential Institutions redress scheme.

Case C-284/24, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. For the plaintiff, in which the High Court has referred questions of law to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the correct interpretation of Article l2(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC (known as, ‘the Compensation Directive’) and its application in Ireland for victims of crime.

Extradition law

Minister for Justice and Equality v. Orlowski and Lyskiewicz [2022] 2 I.R. 122. For one of the respondents, the subject of a European Arrest Warrant issued by Poland, in a case referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Poland’s judicial appointments system and rule of law issues.

Minister for Justice v. Sparling and others [2024] IESC 40. For one of the respondents, who is the subject of a Trade and Co-operation Agreement Warrant issued by the U.K. The case has been referred to the Court of Justice, Case C-528/24 Boothnesse, for clarification as to the scope of such a warrant and the rule of specialty.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v. Rettinger [2010] 3 I.R. 783 [2011] 1 ILRM 157. For the respondent, opposing his surrender to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant on the basis of overcrowding in Poland’s prisons. The Supreme Court delivered a leading judgment on the approach to be applied in cases concerning Article 3 of the ECHR.

Attorney General v. Damache [2015] IEHC 339. For the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as amicus curiae. An extradition request by the U.S.A. which was refused by the High Court.

Attorney General v. Marques [2016] IECA 374. Again, for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as amicus curiae, in a judgment with focus on Article 6 of the ECHR.

Disability and equality/discrimination

Sinnott v. Minister for the Environment [2017] 2 I.R. 570, [2018] 1 ILRM 204. For the plaintiff, a blind man, successfully challenging the state’s failure to provide him with tactile voting at elections, leading to legislative reform and new tactile ballot paper templates.

Reeves and Lennon v Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal [2020] IESC 31. For the applicant parents and children in a successful challenge to their exclusion from grants to adapt vehicles. The Supreme Court granted a declaration that Regulation 3 of the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations 1994 was not properly applied.

Donnelly v. Minister for Social Protection [2022] 2 ILRM 185. For the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as amicus curiae, in a leading Supreme Court judgment on Article 40.1 of the Constitution and discrimination.

Heneghan v Irish Blood Transfusion Board, High Court. For the applicant, which led to the Board ending its permanent exclusion of all homosexual men from donating blood.

Criminal law and Fair Trial rights

Collins v. DPP [2019] 2 I.R. 716. For the appellant, on sentencing principles.

DPP v. Mills  [2015] 4 I.R. 659. For the appellant, on the defence of entrapment. It led to an application to the ECtHR: Mills v. Ireland, app. no. 50468/16, decision dated 2 November 2017.

DPP v. Glynn [2021] 3 I.R. 768. For the appellant, on an issue of statutory interpretation.

Michael was part of a small team selected by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute to carry out a study of the criminal justice system in Georgia, on foot of a complaint by the Georgian Bar Association that there was an imbalance in favour of the prosecution authorities. A detailed report was compiled which assessed the Georgian system’s compliance with the ECHR, provided recommendations for reform, and led to a number of changes being introduced by the Georgian government and Georgian Bar Association: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5252a22e4.pdf. He taught at six one-week training sessions with judges in Tunisia following the 2011 Jasmine Revolution, which sparked the so-called Arab Spring. There was primary focus on the criminal justice system, working closely with the judges on what improvements might be introduced.

Immigration and Asylum

N.H.V. v. Minister for Justice and Equality  [2018] 1 I.R. 246, [2017] 1 ILRM 105. For the applicant. The Supreme Court struck down the absolute statutory prohibition on asylum seekers taking up employment. It led to Ireland opting into the EU Receptions Directive, so allowing certain asylum seekers to work.

Metock v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] QB 318, [2009] 2 WLR 821, and Singh v. Minister for Justice [2016] QB 208, [2016] 1 CMLR 416, [2015] 3 WLR 1311, [2016] INLR 264. For the applicants, in two leading judgments on free movement rights before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Landsberg v. National Driving Licence Service [2021] IEHC 748. For the applicant, successfully ending the prohibition on asylum seekers being issued with an Irish driving licence.

X v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2023] 1 I.R. 428; [2021] 1 ILRM 441. For the UNHCR as amicus curiae before the Supreme Court, concerning the definition of a child for the purpose of family reunification.

Michael devised and introduced the Immigration and Asylum module on the Degree of Barrister-at-law course at the Honorable Society of  King’s Inns in 2005 with Saul Woolfson B.L.

Torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and Article 3 ECHR

Izevbekhai v. Ireland, App. no. 43408/08. For the applicant, before the European Court of Human Rights in the first Rule 39 request to be granted against Ireland.

YY v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] 1 ILRM 109. For the applicant, an Algerian national who resided in Ireland but had been convicted in France of serious terrorist offences who was the subject of a deportation order.

Lelimo v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2004] 2 I.R. 178. For the applicant. It was the first case to rule on the temporal scope of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.

For the ‘Hooded Men’ in their application to the High Court to require the Government to make a decision on whether to ask the ECtHR to invoke an exceptional procedure under Rule 80 of its rules, to revise its judgment in Ireland v. United Kingdom (Application no. 5310/17).

In his international work, referred to below, Michael has conducted many training sessions on Article 3 of the ECHR.

Forced labour and human trafficking

Hussein v. Labour Court  [2016] 1 I.R. 180, [2016] 1 ILRM 55. Appeared for Amnesty International as an amicus curiae in the Supreme Court. The case concerned the rights of an illegal migrant to employment protections.

 International Transport Workers’ Federation v. Minister for Justice [2018] IEHC 685. For the plaintiff federation, in a High Court challenge to the regulation of fishing vessels and their crew, arguing that regulatory failures had led to the trafficking of workers (mainly from Egypt and the Philippines, many of whom were assessed as victims of trafficking). The case led to mediation, and a major reform of the regulatory system.

Michael has appeared in criminal cases where charges of human trafficking have been brought.

National security

See reference to A.P. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] 3 IR 317; [2019] 2 ILRM 377, above.

Michael is consultant editor of the textbook, National Security Law in Ireland, O’Connor, 2019, Bloomsbury.

International work

Michael has large experience of working internationally, and the use of international and regional human rights conventions. For example, he has worked with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute on the following projects.

• Devising a training programme for human rights lawyers in Azerbaijan on bringing applications before the ECtHR, and the introduction of a mentoring programme for young lawyers.
• Teaching at six one-week training sessions in human rights law for the judiciary in Tunisia (a project funded by the Swedish government).
• Training the Police Ombudsman’s Office in Bahrain, with particular emphasis on conditions in detention.
• Fact-finding Mission in Georgia and presentation of the IBA’s report to the Minister for Justice and interested parties in Tbilisi.
• Fact-finding Mission in Syria on the Syrian Bar Association and its treatment of lawyers – the civil war broke out whilst there (March 2011) – the report included a number of recommendations and is available at https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/globalassets/advokatsamfundet_sv/nyheter/syria_report_july_2011.pdf.
• Training in human rights law in Libya, at Al Fateh University, Tripoli.
• Training in human rights law in Jordan with the Palestine Bar Association.