As for the two acts it is hard to find ways to find them unconstitutional in abstract. The Blasphemy provision for example does exactly as is (apparently) warranted by the Constitution.

As for the Criminal Justice Act it would be dubious for the SC to stand up and say it couldn’t allow gardai give evidence on something within their knowledge. It would have a profound effect on every level of Court Case if it stated only gardai of a certain rank could give evidence.

As for increasing the amount of crime’s which can go to the SCC, this power has been in since the 70′s(I think) as any offence could be declared a scheduled offence under the OASA. The criminal Gangs offence, again, already existed under the provisions of the OASA (member of an illegal organisation is quite wide under the act).

The problem I personally have is that the Questionable use of the SCC at all as it continually leads to acquittals, the UNHRC has discredited it and the main courts have never been found to have been inadequate. I Can only think of one case, the infamous Liam Keane trial, where a case actually collapsed.

The scenario that you outline in respect of someone not being able to afford a Supreme Court challenge would never arise. Firstly, practitioners would always be willing to take such a case on a ‘no foal no fee’ basis. Believe it or not this happens all the time. Secondly, given the nature of these cases they would invariably be covered by Legal Aid or the Attorney General’s scheme.

I am of the view that the law in this area is black and white. The provisions of this Bill are entirely unconstitutional. But I know that it is far easier to argue this in the context of a factual scenario than as an artificial construct.

As for the Criminal Justice Act, it is yet another step down the road of removing centuries of law using high crime levels as an excuse. All I can say is thank god death penalty is prohibited by the constitution because it seems that will be what they’ll introduce next

I’m no barristor or solicitor but surely your argument renders the president totally redundant in the process of creating new law. By your logic surely every bill passed by the houses of the Oireachtas should go straight into law where it will eventually be challenged if it is necessary? Why make any act immune from challenge?

Like i said, I’m no solicitor but a legal degree has given me some understanding of the importance of the presidents role in this particular area. Although her role is largely ceremonial day to day the one role she does have with some significance, and its very significant, is ensuring that no law is enacted that is contrary to the constitution. And this morning she failed in that task.

First, its clear to the dogs in the street that these acts, especially Criminal Justice are borderline Constitutionally at best so it was her duty to refer them!

Second, because they are borderline there are going to be numerous challanges on large aspects of each of these bills. This will cost the state a fortune and make the legal profession a fortune in challenging them. Brilliant!

Third, it is surely preferable for the law to be black and white constitutional without the need for individual cases and the emotion and sentiment attached?

Fourth, we have a vaccum now. What happens if somebody is tried in the Special Criminal Court without a Jury and is convicted with Garda opinion evidence both of which happen to be deemed unconstituional several years down the line but that person cant afford to challenge the law to the Supreme Court at the time? Or when some gang member eventually challenges these, and they will, we risk the case collapsing on a technicallity in the Supreme Court?

This is why we have a system in place to make sure that laws are constitutionally sound before they are enacted to stop injustices like that from happening as much as possible.

The President failed the country in her most important duty this morning.