The Oireachtas Flashcards
Article 17
The Dail must approve of distribution of State finances
K Security v Ireland
Plaintiffs claimed that they should reimbursed out of public funds for their representation before a Tribunal of Inquiry
Held payment out of or a charge upon public funds must be clearly expressed and cannot be a matter merely of implication
TD v Minister for Education
Held that the court could not tell Minister to spend money as the Dail is the one that deals with public finances
Heneghan v Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government
Challenge on Article 16 & 18 regarding the election of members into the Dail versus Seanad
Challenge on the fact that ***university graduates get priority for voting **
Held anti-democratic
O’Donovan v Attorney General
Argued that Electoral (Amendment) Act 1959 infringed Constitution by failing to ensure the ratio between the number of members per constituency and population of constituency was not ‘in so far practicably the same’
Held that, although mathematical accuracy could not be achieved, the discrepancies were substantial
Due regard had not been paid to changes in population trends
Murphy
Last finalised census should determine the constituency numbers
O’Reilly v Minister for the Environment
P argued that alphabetically was unfair as higher names would be seen/remembered more than the bottom
Court disagreed
McMahon v Attorney General
Counterfoil had number on it
Effectively meant that **voter could be tracked down **
Found as unconstitutional
Draper v Attorney General
P had multiple sclerosis
Expanding postal voting would be at risk of abuse
Breathnach v Ireland
Court said that prisoner was entitled to vote, however his right to vote was suspended as it was as a result of their own actions
Redmond
Candidate formerly had to show sincerity in the form of a** deposit**
Found unconstitutional
King
Instead of deposit, sincerity was proven by signatures
Held that the signatures was fine, but having to travel to their local authority office was a heavy burden and disproportionate
Article 15.10
Each house shall make its own rules and standing orders
Article 15.12
Official reports and publications of the Oireachtas or of either house thereof and utterances made in either house shall be privileged
Article 15.13
Members of each house shall, except for treason, be privileged from arrest in going and returning from either house
O’Malley v Ann Ceann Comhairle
Court refused to intervene in the internal workings of the Dail
Maguire v Ardagh
Oireachtas has no power to set up enquiry for external matters
Oireachtas is constitutionally entitled to hold certain types of inquiry but not where inquiry could have a significant effect on the rights of a third party.
Howlin
Article 15.12 is not self-executing, but must be triggered by some express act
Callely v Moylan
Oireachtas has power to punish someone
GRA
Held that utterances were allowed for evidence, not to hold them to account
Kerins v McGuinness
Kerins argued that PAC did not have jurisdiction to carry out the investigation that they did and sued for damages
Supreme Court found
i) The committee concerned was covered by 15.10-13
ii) Can receive evidence if what was said in a meeting iii) Privileges of Oireachtas applied iv) Despite privileges, there is not an absolute barrier in all circumstances to the bringing of proceedings concerning actions of a committee of the House of the Oireachtas v) Court must recognise that they cannot question if goes directly against the privileges set out in 15.10-13
A court can only intervene where, as a result of an assessment of all of the circumstances of the case, there has been a significant unremedied unlawful action on the part of a committee
O’Brien
RTE was going to do a program that mentioned his finances
O’Brien got a temporary injunction which prevented RTE from doing so
Utterances were made about his finances in the Dail however
Dismissed as utterances cannot be raised in court, only the houses themselves
