Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Constitutional rights - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Ct is prepared to go quite a way with the legislature,
        
        (i) the government can make a reasoned and reasonable case for the law in question;
        
        (ii) the restriction on private property is fair and not arbitrary,
        
        (iii) the social good to be achieved warrants or is proportionate to the restriction on the exercise of property rights.
    - - In many cases, the exigencies of the common good have been cited, on occasions like a mantra, to defeat any constitutional challenge. In this way, cts have justified
        
        restrictions on the use of gaming machines;
        
        limitations on land use in the interests of protecting national monuments (O’Callaghan v Commissioner for Public Works);
        
        compulsory acquisition of bogland (O’Brien v Bord na Mona);
        
        the regulation and control of banking business (PMPS v AG);
        
        residential property tax
        
        he freezing of bank accounts operated on behalf of unlawful organisations (Clancy v Ireland);
        
        the super levy regime on milk production;
        
        restrictions on the granting of casual trading licenses;
        
        statutory powers to
        
        investigate the control of companies;
        
        to assess taxpayers and to recover unpaid taxes;
        
        statutory regulation of the liability of joint tortfeasors (Iarnroid Eireann)
        
        statutory powers to forfeit property derived from criminal activities;
        
        an extra-statutory scheme of compensation for owners of diseased cattle;
        
        restrictions on land user in the interests of the safety of air travel;
        
        retention by Gardaí of property seized, following a lawful arrest, for the purpose of a criminal prosecution either at home or abroad.
        
        The case law on property rights identifies several factors that will be taken into account in determining whether a restriction of property rights amounts to an ‘unjust attack’ contrary to Article 40.3.2.
- - - - recognised the rights of the child, and duty of the State as guardian of the common good. BnaH declares that the primary and natural educator of the child is the family. State guarantees to respect the rights of the parent to provide an education for the child.
        
        State requires children to receive a certain minimum education; the wording ‘certain minimum’ does leave a grey area as to what that said minimum standard is.
        
        The Education (Welfare) Act 2000 does not give a definition of a “minimum education”.
        
        However, it does provide that the Minister may set out a “prescribed minimum education”.
        
        That minimum standard may be different for children of different ages and of different capacities.
      - State will not oblige parents to send their child to certain schools and the child can be home educated, once registered.
      - Where a child has special needs which cannot be provided for by the parents, State is obliged to cater for such needs in order to fulfil the child’s basic fundamental right to education.
      - Sinnott established that the appropriate education and that this education should be provided regardless of a person’s age. In agreeing that Sinnott had not received the education he had been entitled to, but that this entitlement ends at the age of 18.
        
        In that case, the Government appealed HC decision. The objection was against the argument that the constitutional entitlement to a free primary education is based on needs, not on age, and does not cease at age 18. The Government warned that the judgment created dangerous constitutional precedents, because it awarded damages for the first time to a person for the suffering of another. SC overturned HC ruling.
        
        The Government had to put an end to the dangerous constitutional precedents, it was estimated that there were 200 legal actions being taken by parents with children with special needs throughout Ireland in the year that followed the Sinnott case.