Topic 4 - Equality Flashcards
Feldman’s interpretations of equality
- Everyone should be treated equally even if they are subsequently left in unequal situations: focus here on the process.
- Everyone should be placed in a similar position (regardless of whether that involves un equal treatment).
- People should be assisted unequally to come to equal outcomes: examples such as female quotas.
- Equality simply guarantees equality of opportunity, the chance to exploit their talents even if that results in unequal outcomes.
Howard v Commissioner of Public Works
SC relied on Article 5 to state that there was no presumption that legislation did not apply to the government
McKenna v An Taoiseach
Use of Public monies to support one side of a referendum is not allowed under Article 5
Equality Authority v Portmarnock Golf Club [2005]
Obiter comment that Article 40.1 does not apply to citizens
McMahon v Leahy
Case concerned the five men who escaped from prison in NI.
The courts are not allowed to discriminate in reaching their decisions; they have to treat litigants out of the same facts equally.
East Donegal Co-op v Attorney General [1970]
Executive not allowed to exempt individuals from legislation - only legislature can do this.
Dillane v Ireland [1980]
Case where defendant had to pay his own legal expenses after being prosecuted; Gardai here performing a social function as compared to other litigants.
Exec allowed here to take into account social and economic differences.
Macauley v Minister for Posts and Telegraphs [1966]
Case concerning not being able to get a telephone.
Article 40.1 does not apply to non-human persons (such as corporations and government positions)
Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997]
Article 40.1 does apply to non-citizens
Ditt v. Krohne [2012]
To differentiate between an Irish resident and foreign resident in the context of an application for security costs would breach the principle of equality before the law.
N.V.H. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2017]; Re non-citizens
Article 41 and the obligation to hold human persons as equal before the law had effect for non-citizens.
Also said that could differentiate between citizens and non-citizens where justified by the difference in status.
Quinn’s Supermarket v Attorney General [1972]
Posits guarantee of equality in terms of human personality.
States that business contexts are not related to human personality.
Murtagh Properties v Cleary [1972]
Case where trade union was unhappy that female bar staff had been hired
Court said that Article 40.1 did not apply to employment; ruled in favour of the employer under 40.3 instead.
Brennan v AG [1982]
HC: introduces basis of discrimination test - if basis of classification relates to the nature of human personality, then the context should not matter.
SC: Reversed this and went back to Quinn Supermarket
Quigley v Minister for Education and Science [2012]
The limitation discernible in Quinn and Murtagh as to the factual context in which the guarantee of equality applies seems to have been abandoned by the SC.
Fleming v. Ireland [2013]; Re Context v Basis approach
In regulation of economic or other activity, it may in principle be possible to show that the category of persons regulated is unfairly over or under inclusive
Murphy v. Ireland [2014]
Case concerning Jury verdicts in criminal court.
Basis approach: state must justify discrimination in matters such as gender, race etc..
Minister for Justice v O’Connor [2017]
SC stated that the narrow construction of human personhood in Quinn had long since been qualified
Quinn’s Supermarket v Attorney General [1972]; Re attributes of human of person
ethnicity, religion, social background etc..not exhaustive list
Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997]; Re attributes of human personhood
SC indicated that classifications based on gender, race, language, religion, or political opinions (although not age) were implicitly included under Article 401.
An Blascaod Mór Teo v. Commissioners of Public Works (No.3) [2000]; Re attributes of human personhood
Stated that pedigree is not a basis for discrimination, the background of your parents.
G v. District Judge Murphy [2011]; disability
Case where person with a mental disability was not allowed to plead guilty found uncon
D.X. v. Judge Buttimer, [2012]
Litigant with speech impediment who wanted to bring friend to in camera case to translate.
Found this was a breach of 40.1; must accommodate where practical and feasible so that all litigants held equal before the law
D.F. v. Garda Commissioner [2013]
Autistic boy who wanted to bring proceedings anonymously was not allowed to do this by the HC; reversed by the SC on different grounds.
Cahill v. Minister for Education and Science [2010]
Guarentee of Equality is not absolute; student had already been provided with an accomodation
Fleming v. Ireland [2013]; Re attributes of human personhood
Positive discrimination might be easily explained and the benefits granted by referenced to age or disability might be easy to justify.
