Methods of Constitutional Interpretation Employed by the Irish Courts - Coursework Example

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Ireland is the major judicial authority in the country and is tasked with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the Constitution by governmental bodies and citizens. The constitution is a broadly-phrased and complex document, and by necessity, its wordings are intrinsically vague. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of Ireland has employed different approaches to interpreting these wordings when establishing the extent of a breach in the Constitution. This paper aims at exploring the various methods of Constitutional interpretation employed by the Irish courts and compare and contrasts the strengths and weaknesses of each method. Additionally, the paper will discuss the deployment of different methods in specific cases while evaluating the overall importance of constitutional interpretation regarding the Supreme Court of Ireland.

Methods of Interpretation Employed By the Irish Courts

Five methods of constitutional interpretation have been employed by the Supreme Court of Ireland throughout its history, which are literal interpretation, the historical approach, the natural law approach, the doctrine of harmonious interpretation, and the broad approach. Research suggests that these approaches to constitutional interpretation can overlap and no one particular method is supreme amongst the judiciary. However, the broad and harmonious approaches are currently in the ascendancy among the majority of the Irish Courts. The Supreme Court has shown no consistency regarding a particular method suggesting that individual judges are over-reliant on the approach that offers support for a conclusion they have reached. The following are the five interpretive methods which have been available to the Supreme Court of Ireland to varying extents throughout its history.

The Literal Approach

This approach involves applying the exact wordings of the Constitution as written in the document. The Supreme Court of Ireland employs this approach when interpreting the Constitution by ensuring it makes no reference to any other consideration because the Irish citizens already ratified the each wording during a referendum. Therefore, the Supreme Court does not use a subjective view of what the Constitution should mean to alter their interpretation when applying the literal approach. The Constitution as the fundamental law of Ireland and must be accepted, construed and interpreted based on the wordings that are used, and where the meaning is unambiguous and plain, it should be given its literal meaning. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has applied the literal approach to construing the Constitution as a whole rather than in parts, and where doubts or ambiguity exists, plain words were accorded their plain meaning except when they were restricted by the Constitution itself.

The Broad Approach

The Supreme Court of Ireland uses this approach to interpreting the Constitution in a manner that advances the intentions protecting human rights and the individuals embodied therein. The broad approach is imperative because it ensures that the Constitution is liberally construed and the Supreme Court of Ireland carries into effect the intentions of the Irish people as embodied therein. Irelands’ Constitution is a political instrument and a legal document, and during its interpretation, the Supreme Court does not place the same level of significance on varying languages applied in succeeding sub-paragraphs. Ilbert points out the degree of subjectivity that the broad approach can entail and states, “a broad approach to interpretation should look at the entire Constitution and identify its main objectives regarding the protection of human rights.”

The Doctrine of Harmonious Interpretation

The Supreme Court of Ireland applies this approach to ensure that constitutional provisions are not construed in isolation, but instead they are interpreted in the context of their Article, paragraph, and the Constitution itself. The doctrine of harmonious interpretation in Ireland is often based on the assumption that the drafters had not intended for any internal constitutional dissonance. The doctrine was first articulated in Ireland during the 1980’s, and studies suggest it might have spurred subsequent constitutional interpretation.

The Historical Approach

The state of affairs, legal, and extra-legal factors are imperative elements when drafting the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Ireland has shown in cases, such as in Melling v Ó Mathghamhna that the 1937 state of affairs played a key role in the Constitutional interpretation. Furthermore, the relevance attributed by the Supreme Court to the 1937 state of affairs was based on statutory rather than constitutional interpretation. This method of interpretation is of secondary importance to the Supreme Courts as in the case of Sinnott v Minister for Education In which seven judges were required to decree on the age the right to a free primary education in Ireland expires. The majority of the judges applied the guidelines of the historical interpretation approach in their ruling but did so simultaneously with the doctrine of a living Constitution, which held that the Constitution evolves together with the society.

The Natural Law Approach

Natural law refers to the spurious impression that there exists a set of inviolate and absolute values of right and wrong which are superior to the Constitution. There have been several landmark judgments since 1937 where the Natural Law approach was imperative in influencing the reasoning of the Supreme Court, but since 1995 this interpretive tool started gradually waning. The overt reliance on this approach has declined due to the perceptions held by the Supreme Court judges that natural law is nebulous and it fails to provide reliable guidelines for proper Constitutional interpretation. However, it was applied in the recent case of DPP v Best to try to establish a purposive approach to interpretation based on the preamble. These cases suggest that reference to the Natural Law is often used simultaneously with the purposive approach to Constitutional interpretation.

Strengths and weaknesses of different methods of interpretation

This section aims at comparing and contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of each method of Constitutional interpretation identified here. Two key strengths make the literal approach more desirable than the other methods of Constitutional interpretation for the Supreme Court of Ireland. First, this approach ensures that the Irish citizens are able to take paragraphs and Articles at their face value as Lord Diplock notes that “the acceptance of the constitution requires that an average citizen should be able to interpolate in advance the legal consequences, and the court must give effect to what the wordings would reasonably be understood to mean by the individuals whose conduct it regulates.”

Secondly, the approach ensures that the doctrine of the separation of powers is upheld as in Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs. In the case, the judges ruled that the Constitution is firmly based upon the Doctrine of separation of powers in which the Parliament is required to make the laws, but the judiciary is tasked with the responsibility of interpreting it. One major weakness undermines the application of the literal approach in the Supreme Court of Ireland. The method proceeds on the false assumption that each word in the constitution has a plain meaning. According to Lord Reid, “it is extremely difficult to draft any provision which is not ambiguous in the English language.” Therefore, words that were thought to have an obvious meaning can be interpreted in different ways because the English Language is inherently equivocal.

Two main strengths underpin the application of the broad approach in the Supreme Court of Ireland. First, the approach helps prevents any rigid application of traditional Common Law interpretative tools which are often inappropriate when used to interpret the constitution. Secondly, the approach is useful where there exist competing Constitutional rights. The major weakness of the broad approach is that it is often difficult to interpret the Constitutional without straying into the realm of judicial policy-making as was the case in Doherty v Government of Ireland in which the judge employed a harmonious interpretation to interpret the Articles in the Constitution concerning democracy and democratic representation simultaneously.

Three rationales make the Historical approach less likely to gain favor with the Supreme Court of Ireland. First, there exist few materials for the Irish Courts to reveal the rationales of the drafters because the constitution was drafted in secret while the subsequent Dáil debates fail to reveal the drafters intentions. Secondly, the historical approach would be at odds with the Supreme Court’s traditional interpretative approach which focuses on the wordings that are clear to them rather than the supposed intention of the drafters. Finally, the Constitution was enacted by people through a plebiscite but amended by a series of referenda suggesting the wordings accurately represent the constitution, and their meanings are more relevant than the intention of the drafters.

Two strengths underpin the Natural law approach in the Supreme Court of Ireland. First, Natural law is absolutist and universal making it relevant among Irish Courts. Secondly, the approach is based on reason rather than revelation which make it easy for Courts to follow the principles. Two weaknesses undermine the application of the method in the Supreme Court. First, the approach often relies too much upon reason, which can be corrupted. Secondly, Moore argues that good cannot be defined through nature because it is a naturalist fallacy which cannot be defined by any reference to nature.

The Deployment of Different Methods in Specific Cases

In the Director of Public Prosecutions (People) v O’Shea , the Supreme Court of Ireland deployed the literal approach to deciding whether or not a prosecution was entitled to appeal for a jury acquittal. The judges quoted from O’Higgins CJ regarding literal interpretative techniques and noted that the “Constitution, as the fundamental law of the State, must be accepted, interpreted and construed according to the words which are used; and these words, where the meaning is plain and unambiguous, must be given their literal meaning.” The broad approach was deployed in the case of NUR v Sullivan, which involved a challenge to the constitutionality of an Act that enabled a union to represent workers in specific industries. The judges referred to the actual language used in the Constitution used to underpin their views. Furthermore, the Supreme Court notes that the Constitution often embodies the imperative principles that are expressed in general language, which is clear and simple and addresses the rights of citizens to form unions.

Two cases underscore the deployment of the doctrine of harmonious interpretation. First, in the NUR v Sullivan, the judge argued that the text of the Constitution regarding the right to form unions favored a broader reading owing to the context in which the Article 40.6.1° was to be found. Secondly, instances of the doctrine of harmonious interpretation were evident in Sullivan v Robinson in which the judge read the Constitutional Articles enabling the Supreme Courts of Ireland to establish the validity of laws particular Article 34.3.2°, and the rationality of the President in Article 26 simultaneously. Finally, the articles were connected and in O’Byrne v Minister for Finance, in which the judge applied the doctrine of harmonious interpretation approach to delivering the prohibition in the Article 35.5 with the aim of safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.

The cases in McGee v Attorney General highlight the deployment of the natural law approach to interpreting the Constitution in the Supreme Court of Ireland. The judge notes that the preamble and Article 6 underscores how the Constitution acknowledges God as the Supreme Being with the ultimate authority. The natural and human rights to which the judge based his judgments were part of what is currently referred to as the natural law. According to Forowicz, the judge's judgment ignored the assumption that natural law should only be regarded as an ethical guideline and can only be applied by the Supreme Court as a mere re-affirmation of the ethical content of the Constitution its ideal of justice. However, the judge assumed that natural law is a theological concept, which was promulgated by reason and remains the ultimate governor of all the laws of men.

Overall importance of Constitutional interpretation

This section aims at evaluating the overall importance of constitutional interpretation in Ireland. Constitutional interpretation is imperative because it ensures the Supreme Court can overturn laws made by distinct legislatures through a judicial review. Furthermore, the manners in which justices interpret the Constitution have a political aspect which ensures the interests of the Irish people are taken into consideration. Constitutional interpretation helps deal with challenges associated with ambiguous wordings in the constitutional text. Judicial interpretations are very imperative in ensuring balancing takes place when judges weigh a specific set of interests and rights against opposing sets that are typically applied in arriving at a ruling particularly in the First Amendment. As a result, cases involving freedom of speech often require justices at the Supreme Court to develop a distinction between legally permissible speech and speech that can be restricted or banned by balancing the prevailing conflicting claims. However, critics argue that the balancing approach fails to provide the Constitution with sufficient guidance on how judges should weigh and measure specific divergent interests.

Constitutional interpretation takes into account the founder’s intent, originalism, prudentialism, and strict constructionism. The Founders' Intent is used when the judges are trying to gauge the main objectives of the authors of the Constitution. It is imperative for the Supreme Court judges to establish the specific framers that can be consulted to help determine what they intended to mean based on incomplete documentation. The Supreme Court judges often apply the princes of originalism to establish the original meaning of specific provisions within the constitutional. By applying originalism, justices at the Supreme Court can underpin their rulings by stating that the wordings in the Constitution hold the same meaning today as it did when it was drafted. Prudentialism ensures that judges refrain from arriving at broad rules regarding subsequent future cases and counsels the Irish courts to play a limited role.

Constitutional interpretation is crucial because it ensures precedents are set by the Supreme Court justices by arriving at a ruling after carefully analyzing previous cases regarding the legal principle of the stare decisis which provides a succinct framework for an ongoing judgment. Strict constructionism is imperative because it requires that the Supreme Court justices should interpret the constitutional text as it was written. As a result, it becomes unnecessary to seek for further analysis especially once the court has established a clear meaning. Furthermore, judges are required to desist from drawing inferences from previous statutes, but instead, they should focus on what was drafted.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ireland remains the highest judicial authority that ensures the government and private citizens comply with the constitutions. The Court has applied various approaches to interpreting the Constitution, and this paper has explored the different methods employed by the Irish courts and compared and contrasted the strengths and weaknesses of each method. The paper has also discussed the deployment of different methods in specific cases and evaluated the overall importance of constitutional interpretation regarding the Supreme Court of Ireland. Constitutional interpretation is mainly imperative because it allows the Supreme Court of Ireland to overturn laws made by legislatures using a judicial review.