cearta.ie – Page 44 – the Irish for rights

CHILDRENSREFERENDUM-300x217 Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with my series of five posts so far (I, II, III, IV, V) on the per curiam in McCrystal v The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs [2012] IESC 53 (8 November 2012) (also here), which held that the defendants’ expenditure of public moneys on a website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the children’s referendum was in breach of the prohibition in McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10, [1995] IESC 11 (17 November 1995). In the per curiam on 8 November last, the Court announced its decision, and said that judgments would be delivered on 11 December 2012. And, indeed, they duly were – judgments were delivered by Denham CJ, Murray J, Fennelly J, and O’Donnell J; Hardiman J concurred with all four. These judgments have already been the subject of a post by Paul McMahon on Ex Tempore blog, as well as a great deal of media comment (98fm | Belfast Telegraph | Irish Examiner | Irish Independent here, here, here and here | Irish Times here, here, here, here and here | RTÉ | TV3).…

#Cameron to #Leveson: LOL

3 December, 20123 October, 2023

| 2 Comments

| Freedom of Expression, Press Council

One of the most entertaining pieces of evidence that Lord Justice Leveson heard during his inquiry’s hearings into the culture, practice and ethics of the press concerned UK Prime Minister David Cameron‘s understanding of the popular sms abbreviation LOL. He had thought it stood for “lots of love“, and had used it to sign off his texts to Rebekah Brooks (sometime Editor of the News of the World, and the Sun, and CEO of News International), until he discovered that it in fact stands for “laugh out loud” (see transcript for 11 May 2012, p76 (pdf)). Given his rejection on Thursday afternoon of the main press regulation recommendations in Lord Justice Leveson’s Report (also here), published on Thursday morning, he is obviously laughing out loud at the Leveson Inquiry, not showering it with lots of love.

In essence, Leveson recommends that the press ought to be overseen by an independent self-regulatory body, with statutory underpinning, and governed by an independent Board. In so doing, he is adopting the basic structure of the Press Council of Ireland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman which were established by the media industry in Ireland and given statutory recognition pursuant to section 44 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), and described in great detail by John Horgan, the Press Ombudsman, to the Inquiry.…

The House that Disappeared on Tory Island – Updated

29 November, 20123 January, 2013

| 3 Comments

| Restitution, Tory Island

Journalist Anton McCabe (pictured left) has written a book about The House that Disappeared on Tory Island (Drumkeen Press, 2012), which was launched by former editor of the Irish Daily Star Michael O’Kane. Film-maker Neville Presho bought a house on Tory Island, but it vanished whilst he was abroad. I have written on this blog about the resulting court case. Now Anton McCabe tells the whole sad story. At the launch of the book, he said, “It is a great story and a true testament to … [Presho’s] refusal to give up his fight for justice”.

In advance of the launch, McCabe gave an interview to the Ulster Hearld which explained his involvement in the case:

I had been going to Tory Island for quite a number of years and islanders had told me they were unhappy with what had happened … Going over in the ferry at Easter 2003, I was standing on the prow of the boat when I fell into conversation with another man before I realised he was the householder, Neville Presho. He was surprised I knew so much and had gone through a terrible time by then. Soon after that, which was ten years after the house had been destroyed, things started to happen.

…

Presidential freedom of expression

28 November, 201226 May, 2016

| 3 Comments

| Freedom of Expression

: The Great Hunger Memorial, St Luke’s Church, Liverpool, where President Higgins delivered his remarks.
(Image via Wikipedia)

Last week, the President of Ireland, Michael D Higgins, in response to questions from reporters during an official visit to Liverpool in the UK, made a number of unscripted remarks about a current political controversy in Ireland. The Presidency of Ireland is not an executive office in the same way as the Presidents of the US and France are – Ireland is a parliamentary democracy like the UK where the head of the executive is the Taoiseach (Prime Minister). Rather, the Presidency of Ireland is a largely ceremonial office, in much the same way as the Presidents of Italy and Germany are. As a consequence, the President’s remarks were seems as political and controversial. He denied overstepping the mark, and robustly defended his comments, but the incident has raised questions as to the limit of the President’s avowedly evolving role. Two articles recently published in the Irish Times neatly encapsulate the competing views. On the one hand, David Gwynn Morgan, Professor of Law Emeritus, UCC, argued that it was never intended for the president to act as a more effective opposition leader:

Pitfalls of pushing out presidential boundaries

… the issue is whether he went beyond his proper authority.

…

Unconstitutional expenditures – V – An update on remedies for breach of the McKenna prohibition

20 November, 20124 February, 2013

| 5 Comments

| Irish cases, Irish Law, Irish Supreme Court

In four previous posts, I looked at the Supreme Court’s per curiam in McCrystal v The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs [2012] IESC 53 (8 November 2012) (also here), which held that the defendants had acted wrongfully in expending public moneys on a website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the children’s referendum, in breach of the prohibition in McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10, [1995] IESC 11 (17 November 1995). In particular, in the fourth, I considered the range of remedies which might be available for breach of that prohibition. I noted in that post that Part IV of the Referendum Act, 1994 (also here) provides for Referendum Petitions to challenge the conduct of a referendum. It comes as no surprise to learn that this procedure has now been invoked against the outcome of the referendum held on 10 November 2012 (Irish Examiner | Irish Independent | Irish Times | RTÉ | TheJournal.ie here and here | TV3). I expect the application to fail, but it has many interesting features which give it a fighting chance.

According to section 40 of the Act (also here), the referendum returning officer must aggregate the returns from all of the local returning officers, prepare and sign a provisional referendum certificate recording the votes and outcome in the referendum, and publish a copy of that provisional certificate in Iris Oifigiúil (the twice-weekly official Irish State gazette).…

On Ars Technica: How one law student is making Facebook get serious about privacy

16 November, 20123 December, 2012

| No Comments

| Privacy

According to Facebook’s “About” page, millions of people use the site everyday “to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, share links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet”. That’s a lot of data, and Facebook has a detailed data use policy, but not everyone will be comfortable with every element of that policy. As well as the inevitable online contact form, Facebook invites questions or complaints about its data use policy or practices by mail, to its California headquarters for enquiries from the USA or Canada, or – since Dublin became the centre of Facebook’s international operations in 2008 – to its Dublin address for enquiries from everywhere else. So, when an Austrian student raised queries about Facebook’s data policies, the appropriate regulator was the Irish data protection commissioner. His story is the feature story on the front page of Ars Technica right now.

How one law student is making Facebook get serious about privacy

Max Schrems requested his personal data from Facebook, got a 1,000-page PDF.

words by Cyrus Farivar; pic, in thumbnail above left, by Aurich Lawson

The world’s largest legal battle against Facebook began with a class assignment.

…

Indentured servitude and a power akin to undue influence – contract reasoning in Pringle (ESM) and Sebelius (Obamacare)

15 November, 201228 November, 2012

| 1 Comment

| Contract, Irish Supreme Court, US Supreme Court

Occasionally, Contract Law principles infiltrate into constitutional discourse. Two recent Supreme Court decisions illustrate the point, one from Ireland, the other from the US. Each relates to an issue of major political controversy and constitutional contention; and, in each, contractual reasoning is at the heart of a significant aspect of the judgments.

In the Irish case of Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012] IESC 47 (19 October 2012) (noted here), the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union various questions of EU law relating to the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (the ESM Treaty). In considering whether the ESM Treaty abrogated Irish sovereignty (in Articles 5, 6 and 28 of the Constitution) sufficiently to require an amendment to Article 29 of the Constitution to permit its ratification, Clarke J picked up on Hederman J’s dictum in Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713, [1987] IESC 4 (9 April 1987):

The State’s organs cannot contract to exercise in a particular procedure their policy-making roles or in any way to fetter powers bestowed unfettered by the Constitution.

As a consequence, he analysed the sovereignty issue in contractual language:

8.3 … in international relations, as in very many other areas of public and private life, freedom to act will often, as a matter of practicality, involve freedom to make commitments which will, to a greater or lesser extent, limit ones freedom of action in the future.

…

Unconstitutional expenditures – IV – remedies for breach of the McKenna prohibition

13 November, 201223 April, 2016

| 4 Comments

| Irish cases, Irish Law, Irish Supreme Court, Restitution

This is my fourth and final post on the per curiam in McCrystal v The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs [2012] IESC 53 (8 November 2012) (also here), which held that the defendants had acted wrongfully in expending public moneys on a website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the children’s referendum in breach of the prohibition in McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10, [1995] IESC 11 (17 November 1995). In my first post, I looked at the background to the per curiam. In my second post, I explored exactly what was forbidden by McKenna, and concluded that it prohibits intentional partisan government expenditure. In my third post, I concluded that the precise constitutional basis for that prohibition is that such expenditure is undemocratic, unfair, unbalanced, unequal or partial, and that it may be restrained because it therefore violates the right to an equal franchise (see also the posts here by Paul McMahon and here by Laura Cahalane, and this assessment by Conor O’Mahony). In this post, I want to look at the remedies which might be available to a citizen for breach of that right.…