The Irish Legal System - Essay Example

Student Name: Tutor: Title: How Irish courts distinguish those bodies which are susceptible to judicial review from those which are not Institution: Due Date: Introduction Judicial review is the legal action which can be applied in response or challenge the various decisions made by the public bodies, for instance, Housing Executive. Such legal actions are important in challenging the manner in which decisions are made, but not the concrete decisions. On the other hand, the High Court is entitled to reviewing decisions made by the various administrative bodies, a process commonly known as the “judicial review”. The supremacy to interpret the constitution as well as to review the laws presents the judiciary as the most influential body of the Irish government. Through actual and abstract review, individuals and bodies are free to bring cases related to constitutionality. Therefore, the constitution of Ireland is not easily amended. It has to be passed by the senate, Houses of the Representatives as well as various voters in each referendum. Nonetheless, the courts in a single decision can make changes on the meaning of the law as well as establish implicit rights discovered within the constitution. Such significant power may appear to be controversial, particularly in the largely debated issues of social justice such as abortion or political issues (Buckley 1998). The Irish legal system was developed from the British system. However, the constitution of Irish largely differs from the Commonwealth model, and thus closely linked to the American constitution in regard to its substance and applications. Such divergences are reflected, for instance, within the judicial review, creating significant ramifications that result in the recognition as well as elaboration of the developed human rights under the Irish constitution. Judicial review within Ireland resulted from the 1922 Constitution where the commonly described as arresting provision of Irish Free State Constitution, Article 65 states that the high court through its judicial power, shall be elaborated in the question to determine the validity of a given law concerning the constitutional provisions. Judicial Review under the Irish Constitution A breach of the public law in Ireland forms grounds for the judicial review of any administrative decision made by the High Court. Therefore, the High Court reviews issues related to whether fair procedures have been followed, the decision maker passed through the required authority prior to making the decision or whether it acted within set in jurisdiction as well as applied the right legal principles before making such a decision. In this case, remedies made through judicial review are considered to be of general application which include, though not limited to violation of the Community law. The Irish Constitution offers a system of courts which comprise of courts of the local and restricted jurisdiction. However, the High Court is entrusted with all the powers to decide on or resolve all issues and questions on whether of the law or fact, civil or criminal as well as a Supreme Court that should be the ultimate court with the power to appeal with appellate jurisdiction provided by the High Court (Seamus 2008). Over time the vigorous approaches made by judiciary may turn out to be the Ireland’s judicial review culture. The ability to comply with the strong judicial review model is acknowledged in the great role played the Irish judiciary through the extension or provision of rights stated in the Irish Constitution. It has been reported that constitutional protection is extended to various rights which despite the fact that are unspecified they are largely by the courts to be fully backed up with constitutional protection. Therefore, judicial review has through notable exceptions in the original extension rather than the restricted provisions caused a permissive influence on the Irish society. Articles 26 and 34 of the single opinion restrictions provide incidences where the constitutional vulnerability within the haphazard climate may be handled (Seamus 2008). “Article 26.2.2, states that the decision made by the majority of the Supreme Court judges shall in regard to the requirements of this article, be the final decision of a court, and thus shall be pronounced one of the judges under the direction of that particular court. Therefore, no other opinion shall be made on whether to assent or dissent. Article 34.4.5, states that the decision made by the Supreme Court in regard to the validity of the law on the constitutional provisions shall be pronounced by one of the judges that particular court may direct and shall be no other opinion made on the question initially raised. Whether to be assented or dissented, provisions of the constitution shall be pronounced.” The recognition of judicial view of Constitution of Ireland as the actual legal document is important. The Ireland courts consider it as the new fundamental law that handles current issues. As a result, it is interpreted based on its impact on the contemporary Irish society and not its original meaning. It is apparent that successful judicial review has increased both the number and type of the constitutional cases that can be taken. The Single Opinion Important limitations are made in the Irish Constitution, making its interpretation increasingly restrictive and less dynamic. This is reflected in its single opinion requirement stated in Articles 26 and 34 as being categorical within its constitutional assertion. The requirement is that there is no other opinion shall be made on whether to assent or dissent shall or not pronounce the existence of any other opinion disclosed. It is a restriction on publication as well as dissemination of the single opinion which strongly rejects the approval of any dissenting judgment. Brian Walsh, a former Supreme Court Judge in his view of the Constitutional Law in Ireland pointed out some of the constitutional limitations. He discovered that obligatory concealment of available assenting or dissenting opinions to a larger extent hampers the constitutional jurisprudence developments of Ireland. It is important to note that the single opinion rule is on contrary to the constitution’s rule of vesting restricted interpretative power through judiciary (Morgan 1999). The June 25, 1941 constitutional amendments included the stipulation of the single opinion. However, another important proviso was placed on the subject of constitutionality contained within Article 34, 3, 3. It is stipulated that once the law is has been judged as constitutional, its constitutionality can never be tested. The Article states that no court no matter what shall pose jurisdiction to inquire the validity of the law, a Bill that shall be refereed to controlling Supreme Court by the authority of the president under Article 26 of the Constitution. Therefore, the subject of the judicial difference as opposed to the judicial unanimity revolves around the ideas of both democracy and power (Morgan 1999). Judicial Review and Irish Sport In cases where a challenge is posed on a decision of the Irish sports governing body by a person or club, the action taken is determined by the private law based-claim of a given breach contract. The Irish courts have stated that both common law and the concealed contractual rights of similar claimants are supported by various implied constitutional rights, for instance, right to justifiable procedures, natural as well as constitutional justice. Therefore, the Irish courts demonstrate their compliance with the adoption of the quasi-public law way, and thus make decisions on sports bodies based on the aspects of irrationality and insupportable conclusion. However, the Irish courts to a larger extent albeit to make a decision on whether or not domestic and private bodies such as the sporting authorities can be amenable to the judicial review (Anderson, 2005). From the practice point of view, the s. 1 reference to any tribunal or a body set up by law might be considered of great interest to the Irish sports bodies. This is simply because the provision results in a ‘horizontal’ effect to mean that even in cases concerning private individuals, the courts are required to ensure that there is no violation of the Convention rights (Hunt, 1998). It is a contention that continues to be at a nascent stage. However, the presumably and regular matter to be considered by the courts in areas of sport will be recognized as the horizontal effect in article 6. It states the right to both fair and public hearing in a more logical time frame by an independent as well as impartial tribunal developed by the law (Boyes, 2001). Therefore, by respecting the rule of liberty of contract in regard to the good social policy grounds, the Irish courts distinguish and discover that bodies which govern sports are more effective than the courts to in deciding on how their affairs should be run. Based on this reticence, it is important to argue that sports bodies established in Ireland should regularly scrutinize the appropriateness as well as clarity of their own rules. This clearly indicates that on the basis of administrative and basic fairness efficacies, various sports bodies within the Ireland state need to foster their private disciplinary tribunals and endorse a resolution authority for the national sports disputes (De Bruin 2005). It is relevant to argue that if the Irish sports body makes a decision that a court properly training itself on the global issues and the law could reach a reasonable consensus, it would not be reserved by the existing courts. Furthermore, in rare cases a decision made on sports tribunal within the Ireland state is reckoned amenable to the judicial scrutiny, a review that should amount to not over an assessment regarding to whether the disciplinary process handling the dispute ended in ‘a fair result’ commonly referred to as Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574, on p. 593 of Lord Wilberforce. Conclusion The constitution of Ireland is not easily amended. The ability to comply with the strong judicial review model is acknowledged in the great role played by the Irish judiciary through the extension or provision of rights stated in the Irish Constitution. Judicial review has through important exceptions in the original extension rather than the restricted provisions caused a permissive influence on the Irish society. The subject of the judicial difference as opposed to the judicial unanimity revolves around the ideas of both democracy and power. To a larger extent Irish courts albeit to make a decision on whether or not domestic and private bodies such as the sporting authorities can be amenable to the judicial review. The single opinion rule works on contrary to the constitution’s rule of vesting restricted interpretative power through judiciary. Courts in Ireland distinguish and discover that bodies which govern sports are more effective than the courts by deciding on how their affairs should be run. Bibliography Anderson, J., 2005, ‘Sports and the Courts: Time for a Sports Disputes Tribunal of Ireland’ 23 Irish Law Times 149. Boyes, S., 2001, ‘Regulating Sport after the Human Rights Act 1998’ 151 New Law Journal 444. Buckley, A., 1998, “Other International Issues: The Primacy of Democracy over Natural Law in Irish Abortion Law: an Examination of the C Case.” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, vol. Fall 1998. p. 275-309. De Bruin, M., 2005, ‘An Irish Court of Arbitration for Sport’ International Sports Law Journal (3/4) 28. Hunt, M., 1998, ‘The ‘Horizontal Effect’ of the Human Rights Act’ Public Law 423. Morgan, D.G., 1999, ‘The future of the Irish Constitution’ in Neil Collins (Ed) Issues in Irish Politics Today, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Seamus, O., 2008, Judicial Review under the Irish Constitution: More American than Commonwealth, vol. 12.2, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law. Retrieved January 31, 2012 from, Read More