Freedom of Assembly Flashcards
where does the constitution provide for the Freedom of Assembly?
Article 40.6.1 (ii) – State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following right, subject to public order and morality: Right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms
Article 40.6.2 – Cannot discriminate on political, religious or discriminative grounds.
what was held in the case of case of people (DPP) v Kehoe?
McCarthy J held that there is no protection for violent demonstrations.
Can assemblies which are protected by Art.40.6.1.ii be ‘attended’ by the police against the wishes of those organising it where there is a reasonable suspicion that there will be a breach of the peace?
what was held in the case of Brendan Dunne v Fitzpatrick
Held that ‘the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to express their opinions freely are guaranteed only subject to public order and morality. These rights are subject to the overriding provision that in the exercise of such rights, public order is not to be disturbed.
What happens if citizens in the course of an assembly commit a breach of the peace?
If citizens in the course of an assembly commit a breach of the peace or some other breach of the law, they thereby disturb public order and their actions are not protected by the Constitution in respect of the breach of the law committed.’
Provisions can be made by law to prevent or control meetings that are determined, in accordance with law, to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger to the general public, and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.
what was held in the cases of Brendan Dunne v Fitzpatrick and Becton, Dickinson v Lee in relation to picketing
Brendan Dunne v Fitzpatrick: Held here that picketing, unless as part of a trade dispute under the Trade Disputes Act 1906, is unlawful and contrary to public order. Banning such is not inconsistent with the Constitution based on the need to keep the peace and public order.
Becton, Dickinson v Lee: Said here that there was a ‘public misconception and belief that a right to protest carries with it a right to picket. That is not the law.’ Again, this is about the Constitution – not about legislative entitlements to picket.
