Re Thirty First Amdt of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr. Justice McDermott |
Judgment Date | 18 October 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] IEHC 458 |
Court | High Court |
Date | 18 October 2013 |
[2013] IEHC 458
THE HIGH COURT
CONSTITUTION ART 42.5
CONSTITUTION ART 42(A)
CONSTITUTION ART 46(2)
CONSTITUTION ART 46.5
CONSTITUTION ART 47.3
CONSTITUTION ART 47.4
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S8
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S10(1)
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S14
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S15
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S18
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S37
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S34(3)
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S34(1)(A)
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S34(1)(B)
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S34(1)(C)
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S34(1)(D)
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S40
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S34
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S40(2)
MCCRYSTAL v MIN FOR CHILDREN 2012 2 IR 726
MCKENNA v AN TAOISEACH (NO 2) 1995 2 IR 10
O'DONOVAN v AG 1961 IR 114
CONSTITUTION ART 16.2.3
CONSTITUTION ART 40.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
A (S) v REFUGEE APPEAL TRIBUNAL UNREP CROSS 1.3.2012 2012/1/106 2012 IEHC 101
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S42
RSC O.97 r3(4)
HANAFIN v MIN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 1996 2 IR 321
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S43
HETHERINGTON v ULTRA TYRE SERVICE LTD 1993 2 IR 535
O'TOOLE v HEAVEY 1993 2 IR 544
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S43(1)
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S48
REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S52
CONSTITUTION ART 47.1
HANRAHAN & ORS v MERCK SHARP & DOHME 1988 ILRM 629
GELMAN & HILL DATA ANALYSTS USING REGRESSION & MULTI-LEVEL/HIERARCHICAL MODELS CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 2006 CH 20
HEATH SEDUCING THE SUBCONSCIOUS - THE PSYCHOLOGICAL OF EMOTIONAL INFLUENCE IN ADVERTISING WILEY 2012
FITZGIBBON v IRELAND & AG UNREP SUPREME 8.6.2001 2001/9/2499
SLATTERY v AN TAOISEACH 1993 1 IR 286
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 6
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 10
ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA
Referendum
Petition - Annulment of referendum result - Information campaign - Public funding - Whether referendum poll materially affected by information campaign - Whether leave ought to be granted to bring petition - Whether prima facie case made out - Whether bona fide issue to be tried - Onus of proof - Standard of proof - Material affect - Whether referendum petition proceedings ought to be conducted in inquisitorial nature - Whether result of referendum as a whole materially affected by unlawful conduct - Whether onus of proof ought to be reversed - Whether change in polling following information campaign - Whether Government ministers sought to obfuscate effect of Supreme Court ruling concerning information campaign prior to referendum - Hanafin v Minister for the Environment [1996] 2 IR 321 applied - McCrystal v Minister for Children [2012] IESC 53, [2012] 2 IR 726; McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10; O'Donovan v AG [1961] IR 114; SA v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2012] IEHC 101, (Unrep, Cross J, 1/3/2012); Hetherington v Ultra Tyre Service Ltd [1993] 2 IR 535; O'Toole v Heavey [1993] 2 IR 544; Hanrahan v Merck Sharpe & Dohme [1988] ILRM 629 and Fitzgibbon v Ireland (Unrep, SC, 8/6/2001) considered - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O97 - Referendum Act 1994 (No 12), ss 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 34, 37, 40, 42, 43, 48 and 52 - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29), s 5 - Planning and Development Act 2000 (No 30), s 50 - Constitution of Ireland 1937, arts 16, 40, 42, 46 and 47 - European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, arts 6, 10, 13 and 14 - Leave granted; petition dismissed (2012/152IA - McDermott J - 18/10/2013) [2013] IEHC 458
In re the Referendum on the Proposal for the Amendment of the Constitution contained in the Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012
Facts: On the 10th November 2012, a referendum was held in Ireland on whether Article 42.5 of the Constitution of Ireland should be deleted and effectively replaced with the insertion of a new Article 42A as contained in the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012. 33.49% of the eligible electorate voted in the referendum, with 58% of voters in favour of the proposed amendment and 42% voted against. The petitioner brought an application for leave to present a petition contending that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (‘the Minister’) and the Government had, in breach of the Constitution, used public funding to espouse a particular viewpoint (i.e. for voters to vote ‘Yes’ in the referendum), which had a material effect on the referendum outcome. The petitioner cited a booklet, a website and advertisements that were published and circulated by or on behalf of the Government as evidence of this. On the 8th November 2012, the Supreme Court in McCrystal v. Minister for Children and Youth Affairs & Ors [2012] IESC 53 ruled that sections of these materials amounted to breaches of the Constitution; nevertheless, the referendum went ahead two days later as scheduled.
The respondent argued that the Court did not have to set aside the referendum result because of the ruling in McCrystal. It was argued that such action should not be taken because the referendum proposal had been carried by a significant majority and because significant opinion polls held since 2011 consistently indicated that the majority of participants were in favour of such an amendment to the Constitution. It was also pointed out that all of the main political parties and every member of the Dáil and Seanad, save one, were in favour of this amendment. Finally, it was suggested that polling data indicated that the Government campaign had not had an appreciable effect on the outcome of the referendum and that the reporting of McCrystal decision would have actually been of benefit to the ‘No’ campaign. On the basis of the above, it was argued that the actions of the Government did not have a materially effect on the outcome of the Referendum.
Held by McDermott J that an application for leave to present a petition under s. 42 of the Referendum Act 1994 required the applicant to satisfy the court that there was prima facie evidence of a matter referred to in s. 43 (which includes unconstitutional conduct by the Government). It was said that because of the judgment in McCrystal, there was clear prima facie evidence that the Government unconstitutionally interfered with the conduct of the Referendum. It was further held that based on the evidence before the Court, there was prima facie evidence that the Government”s actions materially affected the Referendum result as a whole. Leave was therefore granted to the petitioner to bring the petition.
The petition was then considered by McDermott J. Similarly to the leave stage, the petitioner had to show that the Government actions in running an information campaign for the upcoming Referendum amounted to breaches of the Constitution and that this action materially affected the Referendum result as a whole. However, at this stage, the petitioner was required to prove both of these elements on the balance of probabilities. McDermott J had no doubt that certain actions of the Government amounted to breaches of the Constitution as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in McCrystal. However, on consideration of the evidence before the Court and the submissions made by the parties, it was held that he was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the unconstitutional actions of the Government materially affected the outcome of the Referendum, especially in light of the McCrystal ruling which was widely reported and could only have been of benefit to the ‘No’ campaign. Indeed, there was clear evidence that the Government moved to minimise as much as possible the effect of the information campaign by immediately cancelling advertisements, taking the website offline, and ceasing to publish and distribute booklets.
Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice McDermott delivered on the 18th day of October, 2013
1. On 10 th November, 2012, a Referendum was held whereby a proposal for the deletion of Article 42.5 of the Constitution and the insertion of a new Article 42A as contained in the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012, was submitted for the decision of the people.
2. The Referendum Returning Officer published a provisional Referendum Certificate in Iris Oifigiúil dated 12 th November, 2012, on 13 th November which confirmed the final results of the Referendum. This certificate was prepared from the reports submitted by the several local Returning Officers in all of the constituencies in the State which set out the following overall result:-
2 "2 (a) The total number of votes recorded at the Referendum in favour of the proposal was [615,731]
(b) The total number of votes recorded at the Referendum against the proposal was [445,863]
3. A majority of the votes recorded at the Referendum was recorded in favour of the proposal."
The result indicates that 33.49% of the eligible electorate voted, 58% of those who voted, voted in favour of the proposed amendment and 42% voted against.
3.Article 46(2) of the Constitution provides that:-
"Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill and shall upon having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to the Referendum."
Article 46.5 provides:-
"A...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Joanna Jordan v Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and Others
...40.1 REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S42 THIRTY FIRST AMDT OF THE CONSTITUTION (CHILDREN) BILL 2012, IN RE UNREP MCDERMOTT 18.10.2013 2013/50/14183 2013 IEHC 458 REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S42(1) REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S42(3) REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S43(1) REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S47 REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S48 REFERENDUM A......
-
Jordan v Minister for Children and Youth Affairs
...information campaign the amendment would have been rejected. The High Court, in its judgment on the petition delivered in October 2013 ([2013] IEHC 458), held that there was a prima facie case pursuant to s.42 of the 1994 Act and accordingly granted leave to the plaintiff to present the pet......
-
Joanna Jordan v Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and Others
...IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENTS THIRTY FIRST AMDT OF THE CONSTITUTION (CHILDREN) BILL 2012, IN RE UNREP MCDERMOTT 18.10.2013 2013 IEHC 458 REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S42 MCCRYSTAL v MIN FOR CHILDREN 2012 2 IR 726 2013 1 ILRM 217 2012/31/9112 2012 IESC 53 REFERENDUM ACT 1994 S43 HANAFI......
-
Kelly v Downey
...in the standard to be applied. This was summarised by McDermott J. in Re Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012 [2013] IEHC 458. This related to a challenge by Joanna Jordan to the referendum result leading to the 31 st Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill ......
-
Through the Eyes of the Child: A Critical Analysis of Child Participation in Private Family Law Proceedings in Ireland
...on the Proposal for the Amendment to the Constitution contained in The Thirty First Amendment to the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012 [2013] IEHC 458 and Jordan v Minister for Children [2014] IEHC 327. 60 See Maria Corbett, ‘The Children’s Referendum is a Game-Changer for Children’s Rights......