Minister for Agriculture v Brennan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1999
• Docket Number: [1994 No. 33 J.R.]
• Date: 01 January 1999
• Court: High Court

( H.C.)

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry

and

Brennan

- Jurisdiction - Whether District Court bound by High Court -Whether District Court entitled to consider constitutionality - Whether District Court susceptible to judicial review.

Article 15.4 of the Constitution of Ireland, 1937, provides that "[t]he Oireachtas shall not declare acts to be infringements of the law which were not so at the date of their commission". The notice party was charged by the applicant with four offences contrary to the European Communities (Control of Veterinary Medicinal Products and their Residues) Regulations 1988 and 1990 (the "Regulations"). The matter was heard by the respondent who, following a preliminary objection by counsel for the notice party, struck the summonses out for want of jurisdiction on the basis that the High Court had (Meagher v. Minister for AgricultureIR [1994] 1 I.R. 329; see No. 57A above) held that the Regulations were unconstitutional and that the summonses, therefore, did not disclose offences known to law. Subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court on appeal. The applicant instituted judicial review proceedings for orders of mandamus directing the respondent to hear and determine the alleged offences. Counsel submitted that the High Court had not struck down the Regulations in their entirety but only certain portions; that the respondent in declining jurisdiction had wrongfully considered the constitutionality of the Regulations which was a jurisdiction reserved to the Superior Courts; and that, in the absence of a decision of those courts, the Regulations enjoyed a presumption of constitutionality. For the notice party, counsel submitted that the Regulations had been struck down in their entirety and that the respondent's order was properly made and within jurisdiction based on his bona fide opinion that the alleged offences were unknown to the law at the time of their commission. Until the High Court decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, the offences were unknown to the law. Held by the High Court (Carroll J.), in granting the relief sought, 1, that the decision of the High Court had not declared the Regulations in their entirety to be invalid having regard to the Constitution; the decision was...