Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Amending the constitution, won't look at the wording in depth - Coggle…
Amending the constitution
constitutional basis
article 46 - voted through Oireachtas and than referendum
people free to change it anyway they wish
court reluctant to get involved
Roche v Ireland
argued wording of 8th amendment too vague, court held - opposed to separation of powers if court
prevent any wording from being presented to the people
- non-justiciable
Finn v AG
sought to prohibit 8th amendment as unnecessary - held - courts
no jurisdiction to consider wording of bills before becoming law
Slattery v An Taoiseach
attempt to stop referendum on basis to provide
adequate information
- held - courts should not interfere in legislative process unless in some appropriate circumstances -
if people felt uninformed could vote no
Riordan v An Taoiseach
condition amendment on good friday agreement
conditional
- allowed provided followed article 46 procedures
Morris
not for courts to determine
merits and demerits
of a proposal
Kelly
court could review constitutionally
prescribed procedure -
principles governing referendums
spending of public monies
McKenna 1
government funded a yes vote with public monies, held - not for courts to get involved in allocation of public funds
McKenna 2
government funded 1 side of divorce referendum - held - can't spend public money advocating one side, although able to advocate for a result
- interfering with democratic process and right to equal treatment
broadcast time
Coughlan
divorce referendum, complaint about about one side getting more broadcast time (all political parties supporting the yes vote) held - was unequal although don't need mathematical equality
- just to be relatively equal
Kelly
Coughlan well followed since to the point of obsession, stop watches being used
Joint Oireachtas Committee - should be reformed - take into account more features
information provided to the public
Doherty
around fiscal treaty referendum, challenge to statement made by referendum commission - test
- if plainly wrong, manifestly inaccurate or misleading and likely to affect outcome
- test not met in this case -
role
of commission is give a
general statement
, shouldn't be forensically analysed
McCrystal
childrens rights referendum, claim that the
campaign is one-sided
- SC held test for intervention is if a clear disregard of constitutional principles -
look at overall tone of the campaign
challenging results of a referendum
Hannafin
after McKenna 2, divorce referendum passed with a slim majority - HC made a finding of fact that result not affected, SC couldn't interfere with a finding of fact - test is it
an express and obvious abuse affecting the result of the referendum
. Public knew government acted unconstitutioanlly a week prior to polls opening
Jordan v Minister
can set aside if can show result would have been different, after McCrystal,
public knew result 2 days before
- burden of proof not reversed - challenge had to prove
reasonably possible result would be different
- big margin of victory in this case
won't look at the wording in depth