Hardiman J in UCD

padser

Did anyone go to Hardiman J's talk in UCD yesterday. If so what did people think of it?

For anyone who didn't go, basically he spent the first hour telling us why as a sitting judge he wouldn't be able to defend specific judgements as it would be completely inappropriate, even in an acedemic setting. He also outlined the recent Statutory Rape (C & C case) constitutional case, and the following 'A' case (where HC let a man out of prison on the basis of the C & C case only for the SC to reimprison his a few days later).

He proceeded in the second hour of the talk to robustly defend the SC reasoning in both the C & C case and the A case (this was probably less funny if you hadn't been to the first hour where he outlined the reasons why he wouldn't be able to do this) using the slightly roundabout way of pointing to, and defending other 'similar' cases. He also got some quick jibes in about Vincent Browne and the 'Irish Times'.

The thrust of his reasoning about the 'A' case is that there is much precendent for not allowing constitutional decisions to act retrospectively. He cited two cases at length.

The first was the 'serial number' on the ballot papers case (can't remember the name - its been 3 yrs since constitutional law) where it was held unconstitional that ballot papers could in theory be traced to individual voters. Hardiman made the point that after that the SC didnt invalidate all governments elected using the system, or the laws passed by them.

The second case was the 'Murphy' tax case in 1982. Married couples were being more heavily taxed then non married, co habbitting couples. Again this was held unconstitutional. Hardiman pointed out that the SC didn't allow anyone who hadn't challenged the provision to claim back damages for extra 'unconstitutional' tax that had been paid. It simply struck out the tax code as unconstitutional and (I think)paid damamges to the couple who took the case.

In my opinion the reasoning here is pretty flawed, and the cases are not really asking the same question as the A case. Or more specifically the cases of other peoplle still imprisoned because of the now defunct provision. There is, in my mind at least, a massive difference between the 'continuing imprisonment of someone under a now unconstitutional statute' and the 'paying of past damages' to someone because of a statute that has now been declared unconstitionial.

For example in the Murphy Tax case, using Hardimans (and the A cases') logic what would happen is all people who had married under the old tax system, would be bound by it even after it was declared unconstitutional - and everyone marrying after the constitutional decision would get the benifit of the new tax system.

Anyways, having gone to the trouble to write all this down, I will probably find I was the only person present at the talk.... :cool:

padser

I'll take it that no one went so. :rolleyes: