Principles of Con Rights

Ryan v AG

Kenny J held that Article 40.3 protects personal rights beyond those expressly enumerated. He reasoned that Article 40.3.2 refers “in particular” to certain rights, indicating that the Constitution protects other rights not explicitly mentioned. On that basis, the court recognised the right to bodily integrity.

Murtagh Properties v Cleary

the Supreme Court recognised the right to earn a livelihood. The courts relied in part on Article 45 despite its non-justiciable nature as evidence of the constitutional value attached to employment

State (M) v AG

recognised a constitutional right to travel

Kennedy v Ireland

firmly established a general constitutional right to privacy, particularly protection against unlawful surveillance.

Norris v AG

the court refused to find the constitutional rights protected homosexual relations, illustrating that the identification of rights was often influenced by prevailing constitutional values of the time.

Sinnott v Minister for Education and TD v Minister for Education

Both cases demonstrated increasing judicial caution regarding the creation of new constitutional rights, particularly socioeconomic rights.

M v Minister for Justice

The Supreme Court criticised earlier reliance on natural law and observed that the natural law methodology underpinning many earlier decisions had effectively been disavowed since Re Article 26 and the Regulation of the Information Bill 1995. The court signalled that any future recognition of new rights would require much closer constitutional justification.

NHV v Minister for Justice

Supreme Court held that an absolute prohibition on asylum seekers seeking employment was unconstitutional. The Court recognised that the freedom to seek work formed part of human personality and dignity protected by the Constitution.

Heaney v Ireland

Costello J adopted a proportionality test requiring that:

1.     The objective of the legislation must be sufficiently important

2.     The means used must be rationally connected to the objective

3.     The restriction must impair the right as little as possible

4.     The effects of the restriction must be proportionate to the objective pursuit.

Tuohy v Courtey

Applied the proportionality test. Supreme Court upheld statutory limitation periods. The court balanced the plaintiff's right of access to the courts against the defendant's right to protection from stale claims and the public interest in legal certainty.

Meadows v Minister for Justice

Traditionally, proportionality had been associated with constitutional review of legislation. In Meadows, however, the Supreme Court held that proportionality could also apply when reviewing administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights. This represents one of the most important developments in modern judicial review.

DPP v Shaw

the accused had been detained unlawfully while Gardai sought information concerning a missing victim. The majority held that the victim's right to life justified interference with the accused's rights of liberty. Griffin J expressly spoke of a hierarchy of rights

AG v X

Finlay CJ treated the unborn's right to life as taking precedence over competing rights where direct conflict arose

Irish Times v Ireland

held that fair trial rights could justify restrictions on the administration of justice in public

Gilchrist & Rogers v Sunday Newspapers

O'Donnell J expressed clear reservations regarding the language of balancing rights through rigid ranking. He warned that a hierarchy model risks subordinating constitutional rights whenever they become inconvenient

Northampton CC v ABF

the court relied upon natural law concepts to hold that certain family rights are of universal application and not confined to Irish citizens.

Fajujonu v Minister for Justice

Supreme Court recognised that non-national parents could derive protection through the constitutional rights of their citizen children

Bode v Minister for Justice

Supreme Court reaffirmed that non-citizens are entitled to significant constitutional protections, although citizenship remains relevant when identifying the scope of particular rights.

State (Quinn) v Ryan

Supreme Court addressed that constitutional rights require effective judicial protection.

Byrne v Ireland

The plaintiff sued the State in negligence. The State argued it inherited Crown immunity and could not be sued. The Supreme Court rejected this and held that the State is not above the law and can be sued.

Meskell v CIE

Meskell was dismissed from his employment because he refused to join a trade union. The Supreme Court held that this breached his constitutional right to freedom of association, including the freedom not to join an association. The Court awarded damages for breach of a constitutional right.

Simpson v Governor of Mountjoy Prison

the prisoners complained about "slopping out", having to use a chamber pot in a shared cell without proper sanitation. The Supreme Court held that this breached constitutional rights, particularly privacy, dignity and protection of the person. However, the Court stressed that damages are not automatic for every constitutional breach. It awarded modest damages (€7,500 in Simpson's case) and clarified the principles governing constitutional damages.

McGee v AG

The Supreme Court recognised the constitutional right to marital privacy and struck down restrictions on the importation of contraceptives. Walsh J held that the Constitution protects rights flowing from dignity and autonomy of the individual and from the central role of the family within the constitutional order. McGee is one of the most important constitutional rights cases in Irish law and represents the high watermark of the unenumerated rights doctrine.