Topic 4 - Equality

Question 1

Feldman’s interpretations of equality

Answer 1

1. Everyone should be treated equally even if they are subsequently left in unequal situations: focus here on the process.
2. Everyone should be placed in a similar position (regardless of whether that involves un equal treatment).
3. People should be assisted unequally to come to equal outcomes: examples such as female quotas.
4. Equality simply guarantees equality of opportunity, the chance to exploit their talents even if that results in unequal outcomes.

Question 2

Howard v Commissioner of Public Works

Answer 2

SC relied on Article 5 to state that there was no presumption that legislation did not apply to the government

Question 3

McKenna v An Taoiseach

Answer 3

Use of Public monies to support one side of a referendum is not allowed under Article 5

Question 4

Equality Authority v Portmarnock Golf Club [2005]

Answer 4

Obiter comment that Article 40.1 does not apply to citizens

Question 5

McMahon v Leahy

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

East Donegal Co-op v Attorney General [1970]

Answer 6

Executive not allowed to exempt individuals from legislation - only legislature can do this.

Question 7

Dillane v Ireland [1980]

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Macauley v Minister for Posts and Telegraphs [1966]

Answer 8

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)

Question 9

Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997]

Answer 9

Article 40.1 does apply to non-citizens

Question 10

Ditt v. Krohne [2012]

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

N.V.H. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2017]; Re non-citizens

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

Quinn’s Supermarket v Attorney General [1972]

Answer 12

Posits guarantee of equality in terms of human personality.

States that business contexts are not related to human personality.

Question 13

Murtagh Properties v Cleary [1972]

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Brennan v AG [1982]

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Quigley v Minister for Education and Science [2012]

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Fleming v. Ireland [2013]; Re Context v Basis approach

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Murphy v. Ireland [2014]

Answer 17

Case concerning Jury verdicts in criminal court.

Basis approach: state must justify discrimination in matters such as gender, race etc..

Question 18

Minister for Justice v O’Connor [2017]

Answer 18

SC stated that the narrow construction of human personhood in Quinn had long since been qualified

Question 19

Quinn’s Supermarket v Attorney General [1972]; Re attributes of human of person

Answer 19

ethnicity, religion, social background etc..not exhaustive list

Question 20

Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997]; Re attributes of human personhood

Answer 20

SC indicated that classifications based on gender, race, language, religion, or political opinions (although not age) were implicitly included under Article 401.

Question 21

An Blascaod Mór Teo v. Commissioners of Public Works (No.3) [2000]; Re attributes of human personhood

Answer 21

Stated that pedigree is not a basis for discrimination, the background of your parents.

Question 22

G v. District Judge Murphy [2011]; disability

Answer 22

Case where person with a mental disability was not allowed to plead guilty found uncon

Question 23

D.X. v. Judge Buttimer, [2012]

Answer 23

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

Question 24

D.F. v. Garda Commissioner [2013]

Answer 24

Autistic boy who wanted to bring proceedings anonymously was not allowed to do this by the HC; reversed by the SC on different grounds.

Question 25

Cahill v. Minister for Education and Science [2010]

Answer 25

Guarentee of Equality is not absolute; student had already been provided with an accomodation

Question 26

Fleming v. Ireland [2013]; Re attributes of human personhood

Answer 26

Positive discrimination might be easily explained and the benefits granted by referenced to age or disability might be easy to justify.