Religion

McGee v Attorney General

Walsh J explained that freedom of conscience does not create a general right to act according to one's personal moral beliefs. Instead, it protects an individual's freedom to choose a religion, practise a religion, or reject religion altogether. Importantly, this protection extends beyond religious believers and includes atheists, agnostics, humanists and those with no religious beliefs.

Johnston v Church of Scientology

Geoghegan J observed that the question of whether Scientology constitutes a religion remains controversial, highlighting the absence of a clear constitutional definition.

Temple Street Hospital v D

parents objected to a blood transfusion for their child on religious grounds. The High Court held that the child's welfare took precedence over the parents' right to religious freedom.

Murphy v IRTC

a prohibition on religious advertising was upheld as a proportionate restriction on religious freedom. The Supreme Court accepted that the restriction was justified in light of the historically divisive role religion had played in Irish society.

Quinn’s Supermarket v Attorney General

The legislation in question generally prohibited the sale of meat after certain hours but exempted shops selling kosher meat so that members of the Jewish faith could observe the Sabbath. The Supreme Court held that discrimination under Article 44 includes both negative and positive differences in treatment. The Court recognised that there is a tension between equality and religious freedom and concluded that different treatment based on religion is permissible only where it is necessary to allow members of a religion to practise their faith. Any accommodation provided by the State must go no further than necessary.

Molloy v Minister for Education

a priest was denied salary increments that would have been available to a lay teacher in identical circumstances. The Supreme Court held that this amounted to unconstitutional religious discrimination.

M v An Bord Úchtála

legislation preventing members of certain religious denominations from adopting children was struck down as contrary to Article 44.2.3

Flynn v Minister for Education

a recruitment scheme gave an advantage to teachers with experience in Catholic schools. The High Court found no discrimination because eligibility depended upon teaching experience rather than the religious beliefs of the applicants themselves.

Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996

Hamilton CJ stated that endowment involves the selection of a favoured religion for permanent financial support by the State. Consequently, the Constitution does not prohibit State funding that benefits religious groups generally, provided that it does not amount to the preferential support of one religion.

Campaign to Separate Church and State v Minister for Education

The applicants challenged the State funding of school chaplains, arguing that it amounted to the endowment of religion. The Supreme Court rejected the challenge and held that endowment refers to the permanent vesting of property or income in a religion. The funding of chaplaincy services formed part of the educational system and therefore did not constitute an unconstitutional endowment.

Corway v Independent Newspapers

The case arose from a newspaper cartoon and article criticising the influence of the Catholic Church. The applicant sought to bring a prosecution for blasphemous libel. The Supreme Court refused leave, holding that the common law offence of blasphemy could not survive in its traditional form within a constitutional order that protected both freedom of religion and freedom of expression. The Court stated that it was impossible to identify the necessary actus reus and mens rea of the constitutional offence in the absence of legislation defining it.

s36 of the Defamation Act 2009

introduced a statutory definition of blasphemy. The offence required the publication of material that was grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by a religion, that caused outrage among a substantial number of adherents, and that was intended to cause such outrage. The definition was extremely narrow because proof of deliberate intent was required.