Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

East Donegal V Attorney General

  • 25-11-2008 10:13pm
    #1
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭


    How's it going folks,

    Basically, I read in a book that this is a very important case as regards the presumption of constitutionality and that where a body or person is given a power under the law, it must be assumed that they are required to exercise this power in compliance with the constitution. However, it says nothing else about the case itself.

    Would anyone be able to give me a brief backround of the case?

    Cheers

    East Donegal Co-Operative v Attorney General, [1970] IR 317


Comments

  • #2
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It built upon the judgment in McDonald v Bord na gCon where the Supreme Court first used the term "constitutional justice".

    East Donegal Co-operative Ltd -v- AG further solidified this principle and extended it to "[all] procedures etc provided for by statute were intended by the Oireachtas to be conducted 'in accordance with the principles of constitutional justice'". (from Kelly, "The Irish Constitution").

    The judgment afforded no list of these "principles" but the case has been used to underline the principle that the Oireachtas will always act in a Constitutional manner. This stems from Article 15.4.1:

    "The Oireachtas shall not enact any law which is in any respect repugnant to this Constitution or any provision thereof".

    Walsh, J, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court noted:

    "An Act of the Oireachtas, or any provision thereof, will not be declared to be invalid where it is possible to construe it in accordance with the Constitution; and it is not only a question of preferring a constitutional construction to one which would be unconstitutional where they both may appear to be open, but it also means than an interpretation favouring the validity of an Act should be given in cases of doubt"

    [1970] IR 317 @ 341


  • #3
    Tom Young
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    OP: Go read ;0)


  • #4
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Tom Young wrote: »
    OP: Go read ;0)

    AH yeah, I had a look through the Irish Reports but the entire thing was horrendously long:p

    Just wanted a quick summary.

    Cheers Kayroo


  • #5
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    AH yeah, I had a look through the Irish Reports but the entire thing was horrendously long:p

    Just wanted a quick summary.

    Cheers Kayroo

    If there are two interpretations of a law - one constitutional and one not, the courts will adopt the constitutional interpretation (even if it doesn't make as much literal sense as the other interpretation) rather than declare the law to be inconsistent with the constitution.


Advertisement