Fitzgibbon v Ireland & Ag

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Keane C.J.,Mrs. JusticeDenham
• Judgment Date: 08 June 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] IESC 207
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 08 June 2001

[2001] IESC 207

THE SUPREME COURT

Keane, C.J.

Denham, J.

Murphy, J.

148/01

FITZGIBBON v. IRELAND & AG

JOHN FITZGIBBON

.v.

IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citations:

SLATTERY V AN TAOISEACH 1993 1 IR 286

FINN V AG 1983 IR 154

MCKENNA V AN TAOISEACH (NO 2) 1995 1995 2 IR 19

CAMPUS OIL LTD V MIN FOR INDUSTRY 1983 IR 83

Synopsis

ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA

Injunction

Separation of powers - Constitutional law - Whether provisions of Constitution being complied with - Whether court had jurisdiction to grant application - Whether holding of referenda unconstitutional - Bunreacht na hÉireann, 1937

(148/2001 - Supreme Court - 8/6/01)

Fitzgibbon v Ireland

The plaintiff brought proceedings seeking an injunction against the holding of certain referenda. The plaintiff complained about the procedures used in debating the matters being voted upon. The application was refused in the High Court and the plaintiff appealed. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Keane, held that it had not been shown that there had been a failure to comply with the Constitution. Mrs. Justice Denham held that the object of the application was to restrain an exercise in direct democracy. It was not apparent that the court had jurisdiction in this matter. The appeal would be dismissed.

1 Keane C.J.delivered the 8th day of June 2001

2 The plaintiff has brought proceedings against Ireland and the Attorney General claiming that an injunction be granted to defer or postpone the three Referenda. Those are the Referenda on the Treaty of Nice, the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the Abolition of the Death Penalty in respect of which the appropriate legislation was passed by Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann and in respect of which, under the procedures laid down by the Constitution and the relevant legislation, the poll was held yesterday and the count is at present in progress.

3 The relief claimed is that an injunction be granted to defer or postpone the aforementioned Referenda or at least the count of votes in the Referenda (and I take the application by way of appeal now before this court to be related to the count) until a case is made to the courts to declare the Referenda null and void due to the gross inadequacy of the procedures and/or practices used to ensure a fair and balanced debate leading to the likelihood of a decision based on adequate information presented in a fair and equitable manner.

4 That application came before the High Court on the 6th inst, and Mr Justice Roderick Murphy having heard the application said that he was satisfied that the application was misconceived in law and he dismissed the application and from that order of the learned High Court judge the plaintiff now appeals to this court and this court listed the matter for hearing this morning. It has had the opportunity of reading the material which was before the learned High Court judge and it has had a notice of the grounds of appeal and also oral submissions by the plaintiff who is appearing in person I am satisfied that, having read the material furnished by the plaintiff and considered what he has had to say this morning, the decision of the High Court judge was entirely correct and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is necessary to point out at the outset what this court has said on many occasions and it is obviously necessary to refer to this because it must be remembered in fairness that the plaintiff is a lay litigant and cannot be taken to have the same familiarity with the law that practitioners might have. I find that the law is conveniently and helpfully stated in Professor Casey's book on Constitutional Law in Ireland, the third and recent edition, in which he refers to a number of unsuccessful attempts which have been made to have the Referendum process halted by injunction and he refers in particular to the case of Slattery v An Taoiseach 1993 1 IR286 in which the plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the holding of the Referendum on the 11th Amendment of the Constitution Bill. The Government it was claimed, had not sufficiently informed the electorate about the implications of the Maastricht Treaty.The Amendment provided constitutional cover for Irish ratification of this Treaty. (I pause there to say that the complaint made by the plaintiff in this case is of a similar nature, that he considers that the electorate in the current Referenda are being asked to decide on important matters without having the necessary information before them in an inadequate time frame and while he expressly does not seek to criticise the material provided by the Referendum Commission under the necessary legislation he does say that the...