The Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judge | Murray C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] IESC 7 |
| Date | 16 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 524 |
AND
[2005] IESC 7
Murray C.J.
Denham J.
McGuinness J.
Hardiman J.
Geoghegan J.
Fennelly J.
McCracken J.
THE SUPREME COURT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Bill
Validity - Charges for provision of in-patient health services - Retrospective legislation -Separation of powers - Right to life - Right to bodily integrity - Property rights -Hamilton v Hamilton [1982] IR 466; Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs v Scanlon [2001] 1 IR 64; Re Planning and Development Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 321;Blake v Attorney General [1982] IR 117;Dreher v Irish Land Commission [1984]ILRM 94; O'Callaghan v Commissioners of Public Works [1985] ILRM 364; Madigan v Attorney General [1986] ILRM 136; Tuohy v Courtney [1994] 3 IR 1; Iarnród Éireann v Ireland [1996] 3 IR 321; White v Dublin City Council [2004] 2 IR 545; ESB v Gormley [1985] IR 129 and Re Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill 1981 [1983] IR 181considered - Delegated powers - City view Press Ltd v An Chomhairle Oiliúna [1980] IR381 followed - Whether cause of action for restitution of monies paid without lawful authority to public authority - Corporation of Dublin v BATU [1996] 1 IR 468; O'Rourke v Revenue Commissioners [1996] 2 IR 1;Rogers v Louth County Council [1981] IR265 considered - Whether bad faith relevant -Murphy v Attorney General [1982] IR 241;National & Provincial Building Society v United Kingdom (1997) 25 EHRR 127 and Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs v Scanlon [2001] 1 IR 64 considered -Health (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2004 -Health Act 1970 (No 1) - Health(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001 (No 14)- Constitution of Ireland 1937, arts 15, 40.3and 43 - Declaration made pursuant to art 26of the Constitution that retrospective provisions of Bill unconstitutional but prospective provisions constitutional
CONSTITUTION ART 26HEALTH (AMDT) (NO 2) BILL 2004
CONSTITUTION ART 26.2.1HEALTH ACT 1970 S53
HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(2)HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(3)
HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(4)HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(5)
HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(6)HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(7)
HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(8)HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(9)
HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(10)
HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(11)
HEALTH (AMDT) (NO 2) BILL 2004 S1(a)
HEALTH (AMDT) (NO 2) BILL 2004 S1(b)
HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(1)
CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) BILL 1975,
RE 1977 IR 129HEALTH ACT 1970 S51
HEALTH ACT 1947 S2
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2
HEALTH ACT 1970 S52
RYAN v AG 1965 IR 294
MCGEE v AG 1974 IR 284
O'BRIEN v WICKLOW UDC UNREP COSTELLO 10.6.1994 2000/13/4988
N (F) v MIN FOR EDUCATION 1995 1 IR 409
WARD OF COURT, RE 1996 2 IR 79
D (T) v MIN EDUCATION 2001 4 IR 259
AG v HAMILTON 1993 2 IR 250 1993 ILRM 81
SINNOTT v MIN EDUCATION 2001 2 IR 545
CONSTITUTION ART 42
CONSTITUTION ART 15.2.1
CITYVIEW PRESS LTD v COMHAIRLE OILIUNA 1980 IR 381
LEONTJAVA & CHANG v DPP & ORS 2004 1 IR 615
HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(9)(d)
HEALTH ACT 1970 PART IV
HEALTH ACT 1970 S45(1)
HEALTH ACT 1970 S46
HEALTH ACT 1970 S45(3)
MCINERNEY (WARD OF COURT),
RE 1976-77 ILRM 229
HEALTH ACT 1970 S53(2)(a)
HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2001 S1
HEALTH ACT 1970 S45
HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2001
(COMMENCEMENT) ORDER 2001 SI 305/2001
DUBLIN CORPORATION v BUILDING & ALLIED TRADE UNION & ORS 1996 2 ILRM 547 1996 1 IR 468
O'ROURKE v REVENUE COMMISSIONERS 1996 2 IR 1
DOLAN v NELIGAN 1967 IR 247
ROGERS v LOUTH CO COUNCIL 1981 IR 265 1981 ILRM 144
BUCKLEY & ORS v AG 1950 IR 67
CONSTITUTION ART 15.5
SHELLY v MAHON 1990 1 IR 36
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 1987 IR 23
FORBES PIONEER BOAT LINE v BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT 1922 258 US 338
GRAHAM v GOODCELL 1931 282 US 409
WASHINGTON NATIONAL ARENA LTD PARTNERSHIP & ORS v TREASURER PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY MARYLAND 1980 410 A 2d 1060
US v HEINSZEN 1907 206 US 370
CONSTITUTION ART 43
O'BRIEN v MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING CO LTD 1973 IR 334
MOYNIHAN v GREENSMYTH 1977 IR 55
FOLEY v IRISH LAND COMMISSION 1952 IR 118
O'CALLAGHAN v COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS 1985 ILRM 364
DREHER v IRISH LAND COMMISSION 1984 ILRM 94
AG v SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL TRUST LTD & SIMONS 1960 ILTR 161
HAMILTON v HAMILTON 1982 IR 466
ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & PART v OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BILL 1999,
RE 2000 2 IR 321 2001 1 ILRM 81
CONSTITUTION ART 43.2.2
TUOHY v COURTNEY 1994 3 IR 1
HEANEY v IRELAND 1994 3 IR 593
CONSTITUTION ART 26 OF THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY BILL, RE 1996 1997 2 IR 321
GEORGIADIS v AUSTRALIAN & OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION 1994 179 CLR 297
PRESSOS COMPANIA SA v BELGIUM 1995 21 EHRR 301
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1
ZIELINSKI v FRANCE 2001 31 EHRR 19
NATIONAL PROVINCIAL BUILDING SOCIETY & ORS v UNITED KINGDOM 1997 25 EHRR 127
CONSTITUTION ART 40.1
BRENNAN v AG 1983 ILRM 449
CONSTITUTION ART 26 OF THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY BILL, RE 1996 1997 2 IR 321
DILLANE v IRELAND 1980 IRLM 167
O'B v S 1984 IR 316
QUINNS SUPERMARKET v AG 1972 IR 1
MURPHY v AG 1982 IR 241
INCOME TAX ACT 1967
CONSTITUTION ART 15.4.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.2.2
CONSTITUTION ART 40
CONSTITUTION ART 41
CONSTITUTION ART 44
CONSTITUTION ART 45
CONSTITUTION ART 46
VAN EMMERIK v JANKLOW 1982 454 US 1131
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S192
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S193
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S194
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S195
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S196
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S197
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S198
NATIONAL PROVINCIAL BUILDING SOCIETY & ORS v UK 1980 25 EHRR 127
MIN SOCIAL COMMUNITY v SCANLON 2001 1 IR 64
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
KELLY THE IRISH CONSTITUTION 4ED 1978
BLAKE v AG 1982 IR 117 1981 ILRM 34
MADIGAN v AG 1986 ILRM 136
IARNROD EIREANN v IRELAND 1996 3 IR 321 1995 2 ILRM 161
WHITE v DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL 2004 1 IR 545 2004 2 ILRM 509
ESB v GORMLEY 1985 IR 129
HOUSING (PRIVATE RENTED DWELLINGS) BILL, IN RE 1983 IR 181
CONSTITUTION ART 43.2.1
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
CONSTITUTION ART 34
DECISION of the Court pronounced on the 16th day of February, 2005, by Murray C.J.
This is the decision of the Supreme Court on the reference to it by the President of the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2004, pronounced pursuant to Article 26.2.1 of the Constitution.
By order given under her hand and seal on the 22nd December, 2004, the President, after consultation with the Council of State, referred, in pursuance of the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution, the said Bill to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question as to whether any provision of the Bill is repugnant to the Constitution or any provision thereof.
Counsel were assigned by the Court to present arguments on the question referred to the Court by the President. Prior to the oral hearing counsel assigned by the Court presented written submissions to the Court, including submissions that certain provisions of the Bill were repugnant to the Constitution. Submissions in writing by and on behalf of the Attorney General were presented to the Court submitting that none of the provisions of the Bill were repugnant to the Constitution.
The oral hearing then took place before the Court on the 24th, 25th and 26th January, 2005. During the course of the hearing the Court heard oral submissions by counsel assigned by the Court and by counsel for the Attorney General.
The Bill in question is a short Bill and since the entire Bill is the subject of the question referred to the Court pursuant to Article 26 of the Constitution, it is appropriate to set out its terms in full:
" HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 2004"
...
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 53 OF THE HEALTH ACT 1970. BE IT ENACTED BY THE OIREACHTAS AS FOLLOWS:
1. —Section 53 of the Health Act 1970 is amended—
(a) in subsection (2) —
(i) by substituting""Notwithstanding anything in the Health Acts 1947 to 2004 but subject to subsections (3), (4) and (9), the Minister shall"" for""The Minister may"", and
(ii) in paragraph (a), by substituting""to whom the in-patient services are provided"" for""who are not persons with full eligibility"", and
(b) by inserting the following after subsection (2):
"" (3) A charge imposed under regulations made under subsection (2) on or after the enactment of this subsection is not payable where the in-patient services concerned are provided to—
(a) a person under 18 years of age,
(b) a woman in respect of motherhood,
(c) a person detained involuntarily under the Mental Health Acts 1945 to 2001,
(d) a person who—
(i) is in a hospital for the care and treatment of patients with acute ailments (including any psychiatric ailment), and
(ii) requires medically acute care and treatment in respect of any such ailment,
or
(e) a person who pursuant to section 2 of the Health (Amendment) Act 1996, in the opinion of the chief executive officer of a health board, has contracted Hepatitis C directly or indirectly from the use of Human Immunoglobulin Anti-D or the receipt within the State of another blood product or a blood transfusion.
(4) The chief executive officer of a health board may reduce or waive a charge imposed on a person under regulations made on or after the enactment of this subsection if the chief executive officer is of the opinion that, having regard to the financial circumstances of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. & J. HAIRE & COMPANY Ltd v MINISTER for HEALTH
...and Another[1952] I.R. 118. Hamilton v. Hamilton [1982] I.R. 466; [1982] I.L.R.M. 290. The Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7, [2005] 1 I.R. 105; [2005] 1 I.L.R.M. 401. Heinrich (Case C-345/06) [2009] 3 C.M.L.R. 7; [2009] W.L.R. (D) 93 [ECJ]. Hempenstall v. Minister for the ......
-
J McD v P L
...Bord Uchtála[1985] I.R. 375; [1985] I.L.R.M. 302. Handyside v. United Kingdom (1979-1980) 1 E.H.R.R. 737. The Health Amendment Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7, [2005] 1 I.R. 105; [2005] I.L.R.M. 401. J.K. v. V.W. [1990] 2 I.R. 437; [1990] I.L.R.M. 121. Karner v. Austria (2004) 38 E.H.R.R. 24; [2003......
-
Z.S. v DPP and Others
...[1966] IR 379, McDonald v Bord na gCon [1965] IR 217, Croke v Smith (No 2) [1998] 1 IR 101, Re Health (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7 [2005] 1 IR 188, East Donegal Co-operative Livestock Mart Ltd v Attorney General [1970] IR 317, O'Brien v Keogh [1972] IR 144, In re Haughey [1971......
-
Dellway Investment Ltd and Others v National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and Others
...... CLARKE J. . [No. 909 J.R./2010] [No. 222 COM/2010] ...6 of the Roads (Amendment) Act, 1988)). In Jackson Way Geoghegan J. expressed the ...Wicklow County Council [2004] IEHC 75 , (Unreported, High Court, Murphy J., 4 th ......
-
Whither Constitutional Environmental (Rights) Protection In Ireland After ?Climate Case Ireland'?
...because of climate or eco-anxiety. 112 105 ibid 372 (emphasis added). 106 Re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7, [2005] 1 IR 105. 107 Friends of the Irish Environment v The Government of Ireland [2020] IESC 49 [8.16]. 108 Gerard Hogan, ‘Unenumerated Person......
-
TD v Minister for Education: Hard Case, Bad Law
...or resources, four years later, Hardiman J as well as the entire court in Re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7 would order the State to pay up to €484 million, ‘more than the annual current budget of the Department of Justice’ in order to protect private p......
-
I Would Do Anything for Rights - But I Won't Do That
...v Attorney General [1982] IR 241. 21 Ó Beoláin v Fahy [2001] 2 IR 279. 22 In Re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2004 [2005] 1 IR 105. 23 C v Minister for Social Protection [2017] IESC 63. 24 See TD (n 1) 281-282 (Keane CJ), who noted that ‘Hardiman J reserves the question ......
-
The Case for a Judicially Enforceable Right to Housing
...76 Moreover, the protection of SER may merely require restraint 77 —e.g., 70 Re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2004 [2005] 1 I.R. 105, para. 21 71 Lord Hofmann, supra note 17 72 O’Connell, supra note 13, p. 165 73 ibid, pp. 144–146 74 ibid, p. 13; Sunstein, supra note 9, ......