Law Exam - Re Baby AB
(A) The Court Division where the case was heard.
The Case of Re Baby AB was heard in the High Court.
(B) Outline the facts of the case.
The case concerned a three month old baby who was seriously ill and needed a life saving blood transfusion.
The parents of the baby refused to the blood transfusion due to their religious beliefs as Jehovah Witnesses.
The Children's University Hospital, Temple Street where the child was been treated applied for an order from the High Court to sanction the necessary blood transfusion.
(C) Legal Issues that arose in the case.
Hogan J. interpreted this provision as allowing an "informed adult with full capacity" to refuse medical treatment.
Article 41.1 of the Constitution protects the marriage family as a fundamental institution in Irish Society.
Article 44.2.1 sets out that everyone is free to practice their religion "subject to public order and morality".
Article 42 proceeds to acknowledge the role of the family in educating and bringing up children.
There were three provisions of the Constitution which had to be considered in this instance: The right to freedom of religion the protection of the family & the right of the family to educate children.
Under Article 42.5 the State can only intervene with this right in exception circumstances where the parents have failed in their duty towards a child.
(D) What was the decision in the case?
(E) What is Judicial Precedent?
Hogan J. ruled that this was an exceptional case under Article 42.5 of the Constitution which justified the intervention of the state.
Therefore the court ordered that the hospital could give the blood transfusion to the baby.
However, if the material facts are different in some way,the court may distinguish the new case from the old case and reach a different decision.
In general, a lower court will follow a decision of a higher and a court at the same level will follow a decision of that same court at an earlier stage unless there are compelling reasons not to.
It means that if the court is faced with a case that is materially similar to an earlier decided case, the court will follow the decision of the earlier case.
A court does not have to follow a decision of a lower court or a foreign court.
Judicial Precedent is a legal doctrine which ensures consistency and certainty in the law.
The part of the decision which the court follows is the ratio or legal reasoning of the case.