Equality

Article 40.1

provides that all citizens, as human persons, shall be held equal before the law

Quinn's Supermarket v AG

Walsh J held that Article 40.1 is concerned with discrimination based on an essential aspect of human personality. Equality does not mean that every person must be treated in exactly the same manner. Rather, the Article prevents discrimination based on fundamental personal characteristics such as religion, sex, age or marital status.

The case also established that Article 40.1 generally protects human persons rather than corporate entities.

For many years, Quinn's Supermarket led to a relatively narrow interpretation of the equality guarantee.

MD v Ireland

the Supreme Court suggested that equality should not be confined to a limited list of personal characteristics. The case signalled a move away from a strict reading of Quinn's Supermarket.

A v Minister for Justice

O'Donnell J emphasised that Article 40.1 protects the dignity of all human persons and should not be interpreted too restrictively. Equality must be assessed in light of the constitutional value of human dignity.

Lievyelle v Minister for Social Protection

The Court asks:

1. Is there differential treatment?

2. Is that differential treatment based upon an intrinsic aspect of human personality, or a status closely connected to human personality?

3. If so, is the distinction arbitrary, irrational or unjustifiable?

Lievyelle therefore provides the framework for most modern Article 40.1 analysis.

Fleming v Ireland

the prohibition on assisted suicide applied equally to all persons. However, it had a particularly severe impact on people with profound physical disabilities who could not end their own lives without assistance. The case is often cited as the clearest example of indirect discrimination under Article 40.1.

BG v DPP

a requirement that legal proceedings be conducted in Irish had a disproportionate impact on deaf litigants. The Court accepted that Article 40.1 was engaged, although the distinction was ultimately justified.

De Búrca v AG

Legislation which effectively excluded most women from jury service was challenged. The State argued that women's exclusion was justified by their social function within the home. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and held the legislation unconstitutional. The case demonstrates that the social function exception cannot be used to justify arbitrary discrimination.

Murphy v AG

tax advantages available to married couples were upheld. The Court accepted that marriage occupies a special position under the Constitution and that this provided a legitimate basis for differential treatment.

SM v Ireland

The legislation provided different maximum sentences for sexual offences depending on whether the victim was male or female. The Supreme Court held that this distinction violated Article 40.1 because comparable victims were being treated differently without adequate justification.

Byrne v Director of Oberstown School

Different remission schemes applied to young offenders in detention centres and adults serving equivalent custodial sentences. The Supreme Court held that the distinction breached Article 40.1 and extended the more favourable remission entitlement to the applicant.