Key Aspects of Judicial Review Flashcards
Pigs Marketing Board
Held that law passed by the Oireachtas must be presumed to be constitutional until established that it is not
Digital Telephony
If case does not concern constitutional law, it must not be considered unless invited to by the plaintiff
Murphy v Roche
Court held that if an issue can be determined on an issue of law other than constitutional law it should proceed on the other law issue
Colgan v Independent Radio and TV Commission
Has to be some doubt or ambiguity to the word/phrase
Shirley v O’Gorman
Double construction rule applied
Constitutional complaint by the plaintiff was put aside in favour of the non-constitutional argument
Blascaod Mor
Must be a high level of amendment for presumption of constitutionality for pre-constitution law
Goold v Collins
A matter is moot where there is no longer a dispute between the parties
Instances where the court will proceed with a moot case
1) Where there is a risk of a similar challenge in the future
2) Where the case is of exceptional public importance
3) If significant legal uncertainty would result from the question being unanswered
Lofinmakin
§ Exceptions to mootness should only be explored reluctantly
§ Factors to consider before taking a moot course to court
- Frequency of proceedings
- Status of parties (public or private)
- Resource cost
- General importance
Etc
Why is Locus Standi a rule?
1) Proper allocation of judicial resources
2) Prevention of vexatious suits brought by ‘busybodies’
- People who constantly bring constitutional challenges
3) Particular requirements of the adversary system
Cahill v Sutton
Locus Standi test
- ‘adversely affected, or stands in real or imminent danger of being adversely affected by the Statute’
Henchy exceptions (Cahill v Sutton)
1) Where people affected may not be able to assert their rights adequately
2) If the provision is directed towards a group that the challenger is part of or they have common interest with
Nicolau
Court held that being a non-citizen does not block a constitutional case
Electoral Amendment Bill Case
Distinction between rights cases (Art 40-44) and dealing with how people choose legislators (Art 12, 16 & 47)
Only citizens of Ireland may vote
SPUC v Coogan
□ P was company with sole objective of protecting human life
□ Given standing to represent the interests of the unborn child
□ Test is whether the body in question has a ‘bona fide concern and interest, interest being used in the sense of proximity or objective interest’
Also rejected that the Attorney General should be the only one allowed to sue
Lancefort
In order to find this bone fide interest, the court should look not only at the Articles of Association, but also the individuals of the body
Irish Penal Reform Trust v Governor of Mountjoy Prison
‘if a person is incapable of adequately asserting his constitutional rights for whatever reason, I am of the view that Cahill v Sutton would support a relaxation of the personal standing rules’
Digital Rights Ireland
Court accepted that they could bring a challenge for privacy and communication rights, but not family, marital or travel rights
Did not adversely affect them
Crotty v An Taoiseach
Challenge to Single European Act
Held to have locus standi ‘notwithstanding his failure to prove the threat of any special injury or prejudice to him, as distinct from any other citizen’
McDaid v Sheehy
Challenge to Imposition of Duties Act 1957
Court held that there was no evidence that all citizens were affected
Dunnes Stores v Revenue Commissioners
D imposed an environmental levy on plastic bags
P could not satisfy that they were adversely affected
§ It was the customers that were
Fleming v Ireland
‘there is no reason in principle why, in an appropriate case, a person cannot seek to argue that their constitutional rights are interfered with by a measure which indirectly affects them in a way which prevents or seriously impairs their ability to exercise the asserted constitutional right’
Mohan v Ireland
Relaxed Cahill v Sutton rule
‘If standing could be denied because the impact of the allegedly unconstitutional legislation on a person, though real, was deemed insufficient or because it was possible to hypothesise a person more clearly affected by the Act, then litigation on such matters would become an unpredictable and hazardous game of chance’
