Upload
jack-williamson
View
404
Download
8
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
con law
Citation preview
Constitutional Law 1
Module Handout
Module Instructor: Oran Doyle
Office: Room 23, The Law School, House 39
Office Hours Michaelmas Term: Tuesday 4-5pm; Wednesday 3-4pm
Email: [email protected]
Module description
Constitutional law 1 introduces students to the study of constitutional law and
theory, addressing a number of key doctrines and significant points of debate. The
module begins with a brief historical account of the development of the
Constitution, followed by an outline of the structure of government in Ireland. The
module then addresses a number of topics related to fundamental rights including
the following: constitutional rights in the criminal process, property rights and the
unenumerated rights doctrine. These rights are used as exemplars of all rights-
based analysis engaged in by the courts. Further rights are covered in the
constitutional law 2 module. The second part of the module addresses in greater
detail the separation of powers under the Irish Constitution, focusing on the limits of
and interaction between the legislative, judicial and executive powers of
government. Finally, the module addresses some general issues including the
principles that govern constitutional litigation and constitutional interpretation.
Assessment is by way of essay, participation in the module’s internet discussion
board and exam.
Learning outcomes
By the end of the module, you should be able to do the following:
Competently read a constitutional case, identifying the important points;
Identify the legal proposition or propositions that a constitutional case stands
for;
Analyse problems of constitutional law;
Advise hypothetical clients as to how their situation might be affected by
constitutional law;
1
Critically analyse contentious issues of constitutional law;
Write coherently about issues of constitutional law;
Develop your own position on issues of political controversy relevant to the
course;
Elaborate your own critically aware position of the extent to which judges are,
and should be, guided by their own political/moral beliefs in their
interpretation of constitutional law.
Substantive topics
During the course we will address most of the following topics, in roughly this order:
The history of the Constitution;
The structure of government;
Constitutional rights in the criminal context;
Property rights;
The unenumerated rights doctrine;
The legislative power;
The judicial power;
The executive power;
Principles governing constitutional litigation;
Constitutional interpretation.
Lectures and seminars
Contact hours for the module consist of lectures given by me and seminars provided
by two postgraduate students, Ms Nóra Ní Lionsigh and Mr Andrew Flynn. There are
three hours of lectures each week, between 1pm and 2pm on Monday afternoons
(MacNeill Theatre in the Hamilton Building) and between 4pm and 6pm on Thursday
afternoons (Theatre 2039 in the Arts Building.)
I employ a mixture of lecturing and socratic method in my classes. The socratic
method involves my asking questions that you must answer. This year, I will be
using a panel system. Each week, specified students will be asked questions. Your
attendance will be monitored and you cannot miss your assigned week without my
prior permission, which will only be granted if there are grave extenuating
2
circumstances. Each week, there will also be scope for general class discussion in
which all students may participate. However, if you are on the panel, you will be
asked questions. Whether or not you are on the panel, you should read the material
in advance of class as the class will be taught on the basis that all students have
read the assigned material in advance. The panels for the first four weeks are as
follows:
Monday 30 September - Thursday 3
October
Law and Business SF
Monday 7 October – Thursday 10
October
Law and Political Science SF
Monday 14 October – Thursday 17
October
Law and French JF
Monday 21 October – Thursday 24
October
Law and German JF
I will notify the panels for the rest of the term in mid-October, once the LLB JF class
list has settled down.
You will be assigned to small groups for the purposes of the seminars. There will be
four cycles of seminars in the term. They commence in the week beginning Monday
14 October. You will be provided with the administrative details for this in due
course. I will assign a topic and reading for each seminar. The seminars provide an
excellent opportunity for you to explore in more depth issues that we have touched
on in lectures. Attendance at seminars is compulsory and all assigned reading must
be done in advance.
Reading materials
I will provide you – at the start of the year in hardcopy form and thereafter through
the webcourse – with reading lists for each topic. This reading list consists of cases,
book chapters and journal articles. The core book for the course is Oran Doyle,
Constitutional Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Clarus Press, 2008). This book is
required reading. Reading from the book will be assigned in advance of each class.
You must read the assigned sections and be prepared to answer questions on those
sections in class.
3
Some of the cases are marked with asterisks. These are the most important cases
and must be read. Of the other material, I strongly recommend that you read some
of it, but it would be unrealistic for you to read all of it. There are three general
textbooks on constitutional law which you may find a useful complement to Text,
Cases and Materials. These are Gerard Hogan and Gerry Whyte eds, Kelly: The Irish
Constitution (4th ed, Butterworths LexisNexis, 2003), James Casey, Constitutional
Law in Ireland (3rd ed, Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell, 2000) and Michael Forde,
Constitutional Law (2nd ed, Firstlaw, 2004). A third edition of Forde is scheduled for
publication in 2013. Nutshells are not nearly adequate for the module and in the
past have led students to misunderstand material and fail exams. You should avoid
them like the plague.
In addition, you should read some of the journal articles for each topic as these will
provide you with critical insights and a more in-depth knowledge of particular
issues. Broad academic commentary is contained in Eoin Carolan and Oran Doyle
eds, The Irish Constitution: Governance and Values (Thomson Round Hall, 2008).
Eoin Carolan, The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury,
2012) is another helpful collection of essays. How much you read is a matter for
yourself. Remember that it is more important that you develop your own sense of
constitutional law than that you read everything that has ever been written on the
subject. Reading what other people have written will help you develop your own
understanding of the subject, but don’t confuse the means with the end.
Webcourse
There is a webcourse for Constitutional Law I. As a student registered for this
subject, you will have access to this webcourse. You need to go to mymodule.tcd.ie
and then log in with your TCD username and password. All module materials
(reading lists, announcements, etc) will be posted on this website. In addition, there
is an internet discussion board. It is a compulsory aspect of the module that you
participate in the discussion board by making (at least) one contribution per week.
This will be explained further in class. (See coursework requirements below.) For all
these reasons, it is important that you regularly check the webcourse and quickly
4
get accustomed to using it. If you have a difficulty in using the webcourse, please
let me know.
Examination
75% of your marks for the subject will derive from a 2 hour exam next May. The
questions will proportionately reflect material covered during the course of the year.
The exam will be open-book, meaning that you can bring any material that you
want into the exam. There will be 4 questions on the exam, of which you must
answer 2, each question carrying equal marks. The first question will be a
compulsory problem question drawing from several topics on the course. The
remaining questions will consist of three essay questions. I have lectured this
module for several years, apart from last year when it was lectured by David Kenny.
Questions in previous exam papers provide a helpful guide as to the style of
questions to expect. However, the structure has changed somewhat over the years,
so bear in mind that you will have to answer one compulsory problem question. This
means that you cannot omit any aspect of the module in your revision. I never give
hints as to what topics might be covered on the exam.
Course work requirements
25% of your marks for the module will derive from coursework. This is divided in
two. As mentioned above, participation in the webcourse’s discussion board is
compulsory. You must make 10 contributions to the webcourse during the term,
including at least one each week from the second teaching week onwards. For each
contribution that you make, you receive 0.5%. Therefore, you can receive up to 5%
of the marks for this module simply by contributing to the discussion board. You
must also write an essay for the course. The essay must be submitted by 3pm on
Thursday 30 January . I have stipulated this date to allow students work on the
essay over the Christmas break and then to allow Schol candidates in the Senior
Freshman years complete the essay after the Schol exam. If you are not taking
Schol this year, however, my strong recommendation is that you complete the
essay before the Hilary term starts so that you will be able to focus on your new
modules. Full details of essay titles and submission deadlines are set out below.
Plagiarism
5
Plagiarism is a very serious offence in a university. It is fully defined in the College
Calendar; broadly speaking, it consists of passing off as your own the work of
another, whether a fellow student or another author. If I suspect that any students
have engaged in plagiarism I shall refer the matter to their tutors and to the Head
of School, Professor Biehler. You should familiarise yourselves with the definition of
plagiarism contained in the calendar, reproduced in the course handbook, and with
the possible sanctions for this offence.
Contact hours
I am usually available to talk briefly to students after class at 2pm on Mondays and
at 6pm on Thursdays. My student office hours are as notified above and I am
generally available to meet students at these times. You can also contact me at the
email addresses above.
Topic 1
The Historical Background to the Irish Constitution
Reading
The reading for this Topic is optional. It is important that you have some historical
sense of how the Constitution was enacted, so it would be helpful for you to read
some of the following.
Constitutional History
Dermot Keogh and Andrew McCarthy, The Making of the Irish Constitution of 1937
(Mercier Press, 2007).
Hogan, The Origins of the Irish Constitution, 1928-1941, (RIA, 2012).
Forde, 1-15
Casey, 1-21
Hogan, “A Desert Island Case set in the Silver Sea: The State (Ryan) v.
Lennon” in O'Dell (ed) Leading Cases of the 20th Century (Dublin, 2000), at
80-103.
6
Keogh, “The Irish Constitutional Revolution: An Analysis of the Making of the
Constitution” in Litton (ed), The Constitution of Ireland 1937-1987, at 39.
Towey, “Hugh Kennedy and the Constitutional Development of the Irish Free
State” (1977) 12 Irish Jurist 355
Hogan, “The Constitution Review Committee of 1934” in O Muircheartaigh ed,
Ireland in the Coming Times (IPA, 1997), at 342-369.
Keane, “Fundamental Rights in Irish Law – A Note on the Historical Background” in
O’Reilly (ed), Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh
(Round Hall Press, 1992).
Hogan, “The Supreme Court and the Reference of the Offences against the
State (Amendment) Bill 1940” (2000) 35 Irish Jurist 238
Hogan, “DeValera, The Constitution and the Historians” (2005) XL IR JUR 291
Doyle, Constitutional Equality Law (Round Hall Thomson 2004), chapter 3
Governance and Values, chapters 1, 2 and 3
Coffey, “British, Commonwealth and Irish Responses to the Abdication of King
Edward VII” (2009) 44 Ir Jur 123
Gallagher, “The Irish Constitution – Its Unique Nature and the Relevance of
International Jurisprudence” (2010) 45 Ir Jur 22
Hogan, “John Hearne and the Plan for a Constitutional Court” (2011) 33 DULJ 75.
State (Ryan) v Lennon [1935] IR 170.
Topic 2
The Structure of Government: Constitutional Change
Articles 12-13: the President Article 14: the Council of State
Article 15: the Oireachtas Articles 16-17: the Dáil
Articles 18-19: the Seanad Articles 20-27: the legislative process
Article 28: the Government Articles 34-38: the Courts
Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill
2013
Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution (Court of Appeal) Bill 2013
7
Richard Sinnott, “The Electoral System” in John Coakley and Michael Gallagher
(eds), Politics in the Republic of Ireland (5th ed, Routledge, 2010) 111
Michael Gallagher, “The Oirecahtas: President and Parliament” in John Coakley and
Michael Gallagher (eds), Politics in the Republic of Ireland (5th ed, Routledge, 2010)
198
Eoin Carolan, “Recovering the Republic? Democratic Representation and the Theory
of Mixed Government” (2012) 47(2) JUR 173
John Coakley, “An Ambigious Office? The Position of the Head of State in the Irish
Constitution” (2012) 47(2) JUR 43
Oran Doyle, “The Dynamics of Constitutional Change” (2013) 102(2) Studies: An
Irish Quarterly Review
Jim O’Callaghan, “Seanad Éireann – An Opportunity for Real Political Reform” in Eoin
Carolan (ed), The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury,
2012)
Jane Suiter, “A Constitutional Moment: Taking Advantage of a Confluence of Events”
in Eoin Carolan (ed), The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects
(Bloomsbury, 2012)
John O’Dowd, “The Constitutional Convention: A Comment” in Eoin Carolan (ed),
The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)
Topic 3
Criminal Rights in the Constitution
Article 38
Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 2
Scope of Article 38
Heaney v Ireland [1994] 3 IR 593
Melling v Ó Mathghamhna [1962] IR 1
*Murphy v GM [2001] 4 IR 113
Unconstitutionally obtained evidence
8
*People (Attorney General) v O’Brien [1965] IR 142
People (DPP) v Shaw [1982] IR 1
*People (DPP) v Kenny [1990] 2 IR 110
People (DPP) v Balfe [1998] 4 IR 50
DPP v Mallon [2011] !ECCA 29
Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11
Walsh v Ó Buachalla [1991] 1 IR 56
People (DPP) v AD [2012] IESC 33
DPP (Walsh) v Cash [2007] IEHC 108, [2010] IESC 1
Moore v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2010] IEHC 466
The right to be provided with a lawyer
*State (Healy) v Donoghue [1976] IR 325
*Carmody v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2005] IEHC 10, [2009]
IESC 71
*DPP v Healy [1990] 2 IR 73
People (DPP) v Buck [2002] 2 IR 268
People (DPP) v O’Brien [2005] 2 IR 206
The right to silence
*Heaney v Ireland [1996] 1 IR 580
Rock v Ireland [1997] 3 IR 484
Sanders v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 313
Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
*Re National Irish Bank [1999] 3 IR 145
Dunnes Stores Ireland Co Ltd v Ryan [2002] 2 IR 60
People (DPP) v Finnerty [1999] 4 IR 364
DPP v Fitzpatrick [2012] IECCA 74
Unfair pre-trial publicity
D v DPP [1994] 2 IR 465
Z v DPP [1994] 2 IR 476
Magee v O’Dea [1994] 1 IR 500
DPP v Haugh (No 2) [2001] 1 IR 162
9
The duty to seek out and preserve evidence
Murphy v DPP [1989] ILRM 71
*Braddish v DPP [2001] 3 IR 127
Dunne v DPP [2002] 2 IR 305
Bowes and McGrath v DPP [2003] 2 IR 25
O’Driscoll v DPP [2009] IESC 23
*Savage v DPP [2009] I IR 185
CD v DPP [2009] IESC 70
Byrne v DPP [2010] IESC 54
Rynn v DPP [2011] IEHC 241
The right to an early trial
State (O’Connell) v Fawsitt [1986] IR 362
*SH v DPP [2006] 3 IR 575
MacFarlane v DPP [2007] 1 IR 134; McFarlane v Ireland ECHR [2010] ECHR
31333/06
People (DPP) v Quilligan (No 3) [1992] 2 IR 305
NC v DPP [2001] IESC 54
O’B v DPP [2010] IESC 41
Kennedy v DPP [2012] IESC 34
Repeated retrials
AP v DPP [2011] IESC 2
The presumption of innocence
*O’Leary v Attorney General [1993] 1 IR 102
Hardy v Ireland [1994] 2 IR 550
No right to confrontational cross-examination
Re Haughey [1971] IR 217
Donnelly v DPP [1998] 1 IR 321
The right to jury trial
10
Article 38.5
Melling v Ó Mathghamhna [1962] IR 1
Conroy v Attorney General [1965] IR 411
People (DPP) v O’Shea [1982] IR 384
*De Burca v Attorney General {1976] IR 38 (judgment of Henchy J)
O’Callaghan v Attorney General [1993] 2 IR 17
State (DPP) v Walsh [1981] IR 412
Substantive Protections: Content of the criminal law
Article 15.5.1
Doyle v An Taoiseach [1986] ILRM 693
Magee v Culligan [1992] 1 IR 233
*King v Attorney General [1981] IR 233
Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1996] 2 IR 321
*C v Ireland [2006] IESC 33
*Dokie v DPP [2011] IEHC 110
*Douglas v DPP [2013] IEHC 343
Books
Kelly, pp1039-1239
Forde, pp404-483
Articles
Yvonne Daly, “Does the Buck Stop Here: An examination of the Right to Pre-Trial
Legal Advice in the Light of O’Brien v DPP” (2006) 28 DULJ 345
Governance and Values, chapters 12, 15 and 16
Yvonne Daly, “Is Silence Golden: the Legislative and Judicial Treatment of Pre-Trial
Silence in Ireland” (2009) 31 DULJ 35
Yvonne Daly, “Exclusion of Evidence: DPP (Walsh) v Cash” International Journal Of Evidence
And Proof (2011) 15 62.
Yvonne Daly “Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence in Ireland: Protectionism,
Deterrence and the Winds of Change.” Irish Criminal Law Journal, 19(2) 40.
Gerry Whyte, “A Tale of Two Case- Divergent Approaches of the Irish Supreme Court
to Distributive Justice” (2010) 32 DULJ 365
11
David Prendergast, “The Constitutionality of Strict Liability in Criminal Law” (2011)
33 DULJ 285.
Topic 4
Property Rights
Article 40.3 and Article 43
Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 6
Character of property right and early cases
*re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7
*Buckley v Attorney General [1950] IR 67
Quinn v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd [2013] IEHC 116
*Attorney General v Southern Industrial Trust (1961) 109 ILTR 161
Blake v Attorney General [1982] IR 117
Dreher v Irish Land Commission [1984] ILRM 94
Standards of review for property rights: proportionality
*Iarnród Éireann v Ireland [1996] 3 IR 321
*Daly v Revenue Commissioners [1995] 3 IR 1
re Article 26 and Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 321
Courts’ attitude to property rights restrictions in different contexts
Land
*Blake v Attorney General [1982] IR 117
Shirley v AO Gorman & Company Ltd [2006] IEHC 27; [2012] IESC 5.
Central Dublin Development Association v Attorney General (1975) 109 ILTR 69
Taxation
*Madigan v Attorney General [1986] ILRM 136
MhicMhathúna v Ireland [1995] 1 IR 484
Daly v Revenue Commissioners [1995] 3 IR 1
12
Factors that affect how courts view property rights restrictions
Irrational Restrictions on Rights
*Blake v Attorney General [1982] IR 117
*Brennan v Attorney General [1983] ILRM 449 (HC); [1984] ILRM 355 (SC)
BUPA Ireland Ltd v Health Insurance Authority 23 November 2006 (HC)
Retrospection
re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7
Public good at private cost
*re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997] 2 IR 321
*re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004
re Article 26 and Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 321
Compensation
*Central Dublin Development Association v Attorney General (1975) 109 ILTR 69
re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7
*re Article 26 and Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 321
O’Callaghan v Commissioners of Public Works [1985] ILRM 364
Participation as Protection of Rights
Dellway Investments v NAMA [2011] IESC 14
What property is constitutionally protected?
Money
Buckley v Attorney General [1950] IR 67
Objects
Southern Industrial Trust (1961) 109 ILTR 161
Land
Central Dublin Development Association v Attorney General (1975) 109 ILTR 69
Intellectual property
Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Cody [1998] 4 IR 50
Running a business
re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997] 2 IR 321
Mutual contractual obligations
Chestvale Properties Ltd v Glackin [1992] ILRM 221
J & J Haire & Company Ltd v Minister for Health and Children [2009] IEHC 562
Litigation
13
Dellway Investments Ltd v NAMA [2011] IESC 13 and 14
*re Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7
Tuohy v Courtney [1994] 3 IR 1
Shares
Kerry Co-Operative Creameries Ltd v An Bord Bainne [1990] ILRM 664
O’Neill v Ryan [1993] ILRM 557
Re Eylewood Ltd [2010] IEHC 57
Value created by regulation – intangible property
*Lovett v Minister for Education [1997] 1 ILRM 89
State (FPH Properties SA) v An Bord Pleanála [1987] IR 698
*Pine Valley Developments v Minister for the Environment [1987] IR 23
re Article 26 and Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 321
*Maher v Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development [2001] 2 IR 139
*Hempenstall v Minister for the Environment [1994] 2 IR 20
Standing to invoke property rights
Private Motorists’ Provident Society v Attorney General [1983] IR 339
*Iarnród Éireann v Ireland [1996] 3 IR 321
Books
Kelly, 1969-2028
Casey, 662-684
Forde, 727-763
Foley, Deference and the Presumption of Constitutionality (IPA, 2008) [This book is
not specifically about property rights but it is about the courts’ deference to the
legislative restriction of rights. We are exploring that topic through the prism of
property rights.]
Articles
McCormack, “Blake and its Aftermath” (1983) 5 DULJ 205
Kingston, “Rich People have Rights Too? The Status of Property as a
Fundamental Human Right” in Heffernan ed, Human Rights: A European
Perspective (Round Hall Press, 1994) 284.
Keane, “Land Use, Compensation and the Community” (1983) 18 Ir Jur.
14
McBride, “The Right to Property” (1996) 21 European Law Review Human
Rights Survey 40
Barrington, “Private Property under the Irish Constitution” (1973) 8 Ir Jur 1
Hogan, “The Constitution, Property Rights and Proportionality” (1997) Irish
Jurist 373
Rachael Walsh, “The Constitution, Property Rights and Proportionality – A Re-
appraisal” (2009) 31 DULJ 1
Rachael Walsh, “Private Property Rights in the Drafting of the Irish Constitution: A
Communitarian Compromise” (2011) 33 DULJ 86
David Kenny, “A Dormant Doctrine of Overbreadth: Abstract Review and IUS Tertii in
Irish Proportionality Analysis” (2010) 32 DULJ 24
Governance and Values, chapters 22, 23 and 24
David Kenny, “Fair Procedures in Irish Administrative Law: Towards a Duty to Act
Fairly in Dellway Investments Ltd v Nama” (2011) 34 DULJ 47
Ailbhe O’Neill, “Fair Procedures – an Inviolable Constitutional Requirement” (2011)
33 DULJ 319
Brian Foley, “The BUPA Ireland case and Constitutional Litigation” (2010) 45 Ir Jur
230
Topic 5
The Unenumerated Rights Doctrine
[NB that two articles are required reading for this topic.]
Article 40.3
Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 4
*Ryan v Attorney General [1965] IR 294
Macauley v Minister for Posts and Telegraphs [1966] IR 345
State (M) v Attorney General [1979] IR 73
Kennedy v Irleand [1987] IR 587
*McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR 284
*Norris v Attorney General [1984] IR 36
15
State (Nicoloau) v An Bord Uchtála [1966] IR 567
*G v An Bord Uchtála [1980] IR 32
*Re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for
Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995 [1995] 1 IR 1
*O’T v B [1998] 2 IR 321
TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259
*Kinsella v Governor of Mountjoy [2011] IEHC 235
*Fleming v Ireland [2013] IEHC 2; [2013] IESC 19
Books
Kelly, pp1413-1446
Articles
Desmond Clarke, “The Role of Natural Law in Irish Constitutional Law” (1982)
17 Irish Jurist 187
*Gerard Hogan, “Unenumerated Personal Rights: Ryan’s Case Re-evaluated” (1990-
1992) 25-27 Irish Jurist 95
*Richard Humphreys, “Interpreting Natural Rights” (1993-1995) Irish Jurist 221
Roderick O’Hanlon, “Natural Rights and the Irish Constitution” [1993] ILT 8
Oran Doyle, “Legal Validity: Reflections on the Irish Constitution” (2003) 25 DULJ 56
Adrian Twomey, “The Death of Natural Law” [1995] ILT 270
Mark de Blacam, “Justice and Natural Law” (1997) 32 Irish Jurist 323
Donal Coffey III, “Article 28.3.3, The Natural Law and the Judiciary - Three Easy
Pieces” (2004) 22 ILT 310
Oran Doyle, “Legal Positivism, Natural Law and the Constitution” (2009) 31 DULJ
206
Desmond Clarke, “Unenumerated Rights in Constitutional Law” (2011) 34 DULJ 101
Gerard Hogan, “The Judicial Thought and Prose of Mr Justice Seamus Henchy”
(2011) 46 (1) Ir Jur 96
Aileen Kavanagh, “The Irish Constitution at 75 Years: Natural Law, Christian Values
and the Idea of Justice” (2012) 47 (2) Ir Jur 71
Eoin Daly, “Public philosophy and constitutional interpretation after natural law:
republican horizons” in Eoin Carolan (ed), The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives
and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)
16
Declan O’Keeffe, “God, the Natural Law and the 1937 Constitution” in Eoin Carolan
(ed), The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)
Aileen Kavanagh, “Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments from Irish Free
State to Irish Republic” in Eoin Carolan (ed), The Constitution of Ireland:
Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)
Yaniv Roznai, “The Theory and Practice of Supra-Constitutional Limits on
Constitutional Amendments” (2013) 62 International and Comparative Law
Quarterly 557
Topic 6
The Legislative Power
Article 15
Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 11 and 15
General principles and the “Rule of Law”
The State (Walshe) v Murphy [1981] IR 275
Murphy v Attorney General [1982] IR 237
Kennedy v Law Society of Ireland [2002] 2 IR 458
Subordinate legislation
*City View Press Ltd v An Comhairle Oiliúna [1980] IR 381
McDaid v Sheehy [1991] 1 IR 1
*Laurentiu v Minister for Justice [1999] 4 IR 1
*Leontjava v DPP and Chang v DPP [2004] 1 IR 591
re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7
*John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd v Catering JLC [2011] IEHC 277
*McGowan & ors v Labour Court Ireland & anor [2013] IESC 21
Interaction of non-delegation principle and ultra vires principle
*Cooke v Walsh [1984] IR 710
Harvey v Minister for Social Welfare [1990] 2 IR 232
17
Primary legislation as a deliberative process
*Leontjava v DPP and Chang v DPP [2004] 1 IR 591
European Community Measures
*Meagher v Minister for Agriculture and Food [1994] 1 IR 329
*Maher v Minister for Agriculture and Food [2001] 2 IR 139
McCauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd v Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland
The power of inquiry
Maguire v Ardagh [2002] 1 IR 385
30th Amendment of the Constitution (Houses of the Oireachtas Inquiries) Bill 2011
Books
Kelly, pp234-251
Forde, pp173-184
David Gwynn Morgan, The Separation of Powers in the Irish Constitution (Round
Hall, Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), pp222-263
Annual Review 2004 for discussion of Leontjava and Chang.
Articles
Neil Maddox, “Legislation by Delegation - The Principles and Policies Test in Irish
Law” (2004) 22 ILT 293
Hogan, “The Implementation of EU Law in Ireland: the Meaghar Case and the
Democratic Deficit” (1994) 3 Irish Journal of European Law 190
Noel Travers, “The Reception of Community Legislation into Irish Law and Related
Issues Revisited” (2003) 38 IR JUR 58
Eoin Carolan, “Democratic Control or ‘High-Sounding Hocus-Pocus’? – A Public
Choice Analysis of the Non-Delegation Doctrine” (2007) 29 DULJ 111
Governance and Values, chapters 8 and 9
John O’Dowd, “Knowing how Way Leads on to Way: Some Reflections on the
Abbeylara Decision” (2003) 38 Ir Jur 162.
Eoin Carolan, “Democratic Accountability and the Non-Delegation Doctrine” (2011)
33 DULJ 220
18
Maria Cahill, “Constitutional Exclusion Clauses, Article 29.4.6, and the Constitutional
Reception of European Law” (2011) 34 DULJ 74.
David Kenny, “The Separation of Powers and Remedies: The Legislative Power and
Remedies for Unconstitutional Legislation in Comparative Perspective” in Eoin
Carolan (ed.) The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury
Professional, 2012)
Topic 7
The Executive Power
Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution
Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 12
The executive power of the State, not the executive power in the State
Murphy v Dublin Corporation [1972] IR 215
Explicit executive powers
Boland v An Taoiseach [1974] IR 338
*Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713
*Pringle v An Taoiseach [2012] IESC 47
McGimpsey v Ireland [1990] 1 IR 110
*Horgan v An Taoiseach [2003] 2 ILRM 357
Dubsky v Government of Ireland [2005] IEHC 442
*Pringle v Ireland [2012] IESC 47
Implicit executive powers
Haughey v Moriarty [1999] 3 IR 1
Lobe v Minister for Justice [2003] 1 IR 1
*Bode v Minister for Justice [2007] IESC 62
*Laurentiu v Minister for Justice [1999] 4 IR 26
Cabinet confidentiality
*Attorney General v Hamilton (No1) [1993] 2 IR 251
19
Ambiorix v Minister for the Environment [1992] 1 IR 277
An Taoiseach v Commissioner of Environmental Information [2010] IEHC 241
Exercise of executive power
MacDonncha v Minister for Education and Skills [2013] IEHC 226
Copymoore Ltd v The Commissioner of Public Works in Ireland [2013] IEHC 230
Members of the Government
Riordan v An Taoiseach [1997] 3 IR 502
Kelly, pp421-564
Casey, pp189-218 and 230-238
Forde, pp118-139
David Gwynn Morgan, The Separation of Powers in the Irish Constitution (Round
Hall, Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), chapter on executive power
McDermott, “The Separation of Powers and the Doctrine of Non-Justiciability” (2000)
35 Irish Jurist 55
Ruane, “The Separation of Powers and the Grant of Mandatory Orders to Enforce
Constitutional Rights” [2000] 5 Bar Review 416 and [2002] 7;4 Bar Review
Casey, “Crotty v An Taoiseach: A Comparative Perspective” in O’Reilly (ed), Human
Rights and Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh (Round Hall Press,
1992).
Governance and Values, chapters 10, 11, 12 and 13
Gavin Barrett, “The Evolving Door To Europe: Reflections on an Eventful Forty Years
for Article 29.4 of the Irish Constitution” (2012) 47(2) JUR 132
Maria Cahill, “Judicial Conceptions of Sovereignty” in Eoin Carolan (ed), The
Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)
David Fennelly, “Crotty’s Long Shadow: the European Union, the United Nations and
the Changing Framework of Ireland’s International Relations” in Eoin Carolan (ed),
The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)
Topic 8
20
The Judicial Power
Articles 34-36 of the Constitution
Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 13
The character of the judicial power
McDonald v Bord na gCon [1965] IR 217
*Goodman International v Hamilton (No1) [1992] 2 IR 542
Croke v Smith (No2) [1998] 1 IR 101
The reservation of the judicial power to the courts
*Buckley v Attorney General [1950] IR 67
The limits of the judicial power
Boland v An Taoiseach [1974] IR 338
Sinnott v Minister for Education [2001] 2 IR 545
*TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 247
Judicial impeachment
Curtin v Clerk of Dáil Éireann
Judicial salaries
O’Byrne v Minister for Finance [1959] IR 1
29th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2011
Articles
Ronan Keane, “Across the Cherokee Frontier of Irish Constitutional Jurisprudence” in
Eoin O’Dell ed, Leading Cases of the Twentieth Century 185
Gerard Hogan, “The Sinn Féin Funds Judgment Fifty Years on” (1997) 2(9) Bar
Review 375
David Gwynn Morgan, “Judicial-o-centric separation of powers on the wane?” (2004)
xxxix IR JUR 142
Alan Keating & Anthony Lowry, “The Seperation of Powers - The Supreme Courts
Approach to Affirmative Duties - Part 1 and 2” [2003] 21 ILT 103; [2003] 21 ILT 118
21
Mark De Blacam, “Children, constitutional rights and the separation of powers”
(2002) 37 Ir Jur 113
Ruane, “The Separation of Powers and the Grant of Mandatory Orders to Enforce
Constitutional Rights” [2000] 5 Bar Review 416 and [2002] 7;4 Bar Review
McDermott, “The Separation of Powers and the Doctrine of Non-Justiciability” (2000)
35 Irish Jurist 55
Gerry Whyte, “The Role of the Supreme Court in our Democracy: A Response to Mr
Justice Hardiman” (2006) 28 DULJ 1
Governance and Values, chapter 14
David Gwynn Morgan, “The Pension Levy and Judicial Independence” (2009) 27 ILT
63
Donal Coffey III, “The Judicial Pension Levy: A Reply to Professor Gwynn Morgan”
(2009) 27 ILT 271
John O' Dowd, “Judges In Whose Cause? The Irish Bench After the Judges' Pay
Referendum” (2012) 47(2) JUR 102
Topic 9
Rules and Principles Governing Constitutional Litigation
Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 16
Standing and Ius Tertii
*Cahill v Sutton [1980] IR 269
Norris v Attorney General [1984] IR 36
Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (Ire) Ltd v Coogan [1989] IR 734
*Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713
McKenna v An Taoiseach (No2) [1995] 2 IR 10
TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259
Cox v Ireland [1992] 2 IR 503
Fleming v Ireland [2013] IEHC 2; [2013] IESC 19
Presumption of constitutionality
Pigs Marketing Board v Donnelly [1939] IR 413
22
Macauley v Minister for Posts and Telegraphs [1966] IR 345
Judicial Restraint
M v An Bord Uchtála [1977] IR 287
Murphy v Roche [1987] IR 106
White v Dublin City Council [2004] 1 IR 545
Double construction rule
McDonald v Bord na gCon [1965] IR 217
*East Donegal Co-operative Ltd v Attorney General [1970] IR 317
Loftus v Attorney General [1979] IR 211
Re Haughey [1971] IR 217
Kelly v Minister for the Environment [2002] 4 IR 191
*Quinn v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd [2013] IEHC 116
Severance
*Maher v Attorney General [1973] IR 140
Desmond v Glackin (No2) [1993] 3 IR 67
Douglas v DPP [2013] IEHC 343
Effects of finding of unconstitutionality
State (Byrne) v Frawley [1978] IR 326
*Murphy v Attorney General [1982] IR 241
Muckley v Ireland. [1985] IR 472
McDonnell v Ireland [1998] 1 IR 134
*A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] IESC 45
*Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11
DPP v Cunningham [2012] IECCA 64
DPP v Kavanagh, Farrelly & Corcoran [2012] IECCA 65
People (DPP) v O’Brien [2012] IECCA 68
DPP v Thomas Hughes [2012] IECCA 69
O’Callaghan v Governor of Cork Prison [2012] IEHC 325
Constitutional Lacunae in Acts
23
Somjee v Minister for Justice [1981] ILRM 324
D v Ireland [2009] IEHC 206
*Carmody v DPP [2009] IESC 71
G v District Judge Murphy [2011] IEHC 445
Articles
David Kenny, “A Dormant Doctrine of Overbreadth: Abstract Review and Ius Tertii in
Irish Proportionality Analysis” (2010) 32 DULJ 24
David Kenny, “The Separation of Powers and Remedies: The Legislative Power and
Remedies for Unconstitutional Legislation in Comparative Perspective” in Eoin
Carolan (ed.) The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury
Professional, 2012)
Paul Gallagher, ‘The Irish Constitution—Its Unique Nature And The Relevance Of
International Jurisprudence’ (2010) 45 Ir Jur (ns) 22;
Eoin Carolan, ‘The relationship between judicial remedies and the separation of
powers: collaborative constitutionalism and the suspended declaration of invalidity’,
(2011) 46 Ir Jur (ns) 180.
Books
Kelly, pp 807-911
Casey, pp 332-376
Forde, pp 875-903
Topic 10
Constitutional Interpretation
Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 17
Interpreting words
Sinnott v Minister for Education [2001] 2 IR 545
Attorney General v Paperlink [1984] ILRM 373
Dillane v Attorney General [1981] ILRM 167
Quinn’s Supermarket v Attorney General [1972] IR 1
24
People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v O’Shea [1982] IR 384
Interpreting values
McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR 284
re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7
State (Nicoloau) v An Bord Uchtála [1965] IR 567
Conroy v Attorney General [1965] IR 411
Gilligan v Revenue Commissioners [2006] IEHC
Leontjava and Chang v DPP [2004] 1 IR 591
C v Ireland [2006] IESC 33
Books
Kelly, pp3-38
Forde, pp50-64
Articles
Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law (Oxford, 1996), introduction
Aileen Kavanagh, “The quest for legitimacy in constitutional interpretation” (1997)
32 Ir Jur 195
Governance and Values, chapters 4 and 6
Constitutional Law 1
Seminar 1
In preparation for this seminar, please read the assigned cases below and then
consider this problem. The problem raises a number of legal issues. Start by making
a note of each issue. You should be able to spot the issues just through your general
knowledge of the area of law, and your notes from class. For example, you should
know that the question of unconstitutionally obtained evidence raises legal
concerns. This then becomes an issue in the problem question. When you have
identified the issues, try to work out the answer to each one. This will involve
reading the assigned case law to work out what the law is on a particular issue.
When you have done that, you need to apply the law to each issue so that you can
25
come to a conclusion: does Walter have a good ground of objection or not? Do this
for each issue. When you have done all this, you will be in a position to provide
advice and answer any question that may be put to you in the seminar.
Problem:
Walter White is at home one morning reading the complete works of
Immanuel Kant. This is interrupted when the Gardaí call by. The Gardaí go
into Walter’s house, showing him a warrant. As they carry out the search,
Walter examines the warrant. It lists the name of the person living in the
premises as “Walter Whitman,” not Walter White. It misdescribes his address;
he lives at 21 Moon Court, Terenure, whereas the warrant is made out for 21,
The Moon, Rathgar, an address which does not exist. He later points these
errors out to the Gardaí, who apologise, and say they did not realise their
error, but the search is already complete. In his spare bedroom, the Gardaí
find a sawn off shotgun and 2 kg of methamphetamine, or crystal meth.
Garda Henry Sullivan arrests Walter pursuant to section 4 of the Criminal Law
Act 1997. Walter is taken to a local police station where he asks to be
provided with a solicitor. The Gardaí make contact with Ms Goodman,
Walter’s solicitor, and commence questioning Walter at 1pm.
At 1.25pm, Ms Goodman arrives and asks to speak to Walter. The station
sergeant informs the interviewing team that the solicitor has arrived and then
ask Walter if he would like to speak to her. He says that he would like to
speak to her, but the Gardaí continue questioning him anyway. At 1.50pm he
states that the shotgun belongs to him. At 2pm, the Gardaí read over the
notes of the interview to that stage and Walter signs them. He is then
allowed to speak to his solicitor in private. The interview recommences at
3pm. At 4.30pm, Walter admits that the drugs are his, and that he was going
to give them to a Dublin-based criminal called Gus, who sells Meth from his
fast food outlet. Walter again signs a note of this portion of the interview. He
is then charged with offences in relation to the shotgun and the drugs and is
ultimately sent forward for trial in the Circuit Criminal Court.
26
Shortly after Walter is charged, Walter’s solicitor discovers several things.
First, the warrant was issued under a new search power in the Drugs
Searches Act, 2012, where a Garda Superintendent who was involved with
the case can authorise a search. However, the warrant here was issued by
Superintendent Hank Schrader who works in a different garda station.
Secondly, when she writes to the Gardaí to request inspection of the shotgun
and the drugs, it emerges that the Gardaí have misplaced the drugs. Please
advise Walter as to whether the prosecution can, at trial, rely on the following
evidence:
The shotgun;
Garda Sullivan’s recollection of finding the drugs;
His confession to possession of the shotgun;
His confession to possession of the drugs.
[please assume that the arrest of Walter was lawful regardless of the legality of the
search – that is, assume the Gardaí had a basis to arrest him even if they had not
found the items in his house.]
Please also be prepared to discuss with your seminar tutor whether or not you
agree with the Exclusionary Rule in its current form.
Relevant reading:
Article 38
Doyle, Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 2
People (Attorney General) v O’Brien [1965] IR 142
People (DPP) v Shaw [1982] IR 1
People (DPP) v Kenny [1990] 2 IR 110
People (DPP) v Balfe [1998] 4 IR 50
People (DPP) v AD [2012] IESC 33
Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11
DPP v Mallon [2011] IECCA 29
DPP (Walsh) v Cash [2007] IEHC 108
27
DPP v Healy [1990] 2 IR 73
People (DPP) v Buck [2002] 2 IR 268
People (DPP) v O’Brien [2005] 2 IR 206
Braddish v DPP [2001] 3 IR 127
Bowes and McGrath v DPP [2003] 2 IR 25
Savage v DPP [2009] I IR 185
Yvonne Daly, “Does the Buck Stop Here: An examination of the Right to Pre-Trial
Legal Advice in the Light of O’Brien v DPP” (2006) 28 DULJ 345
Constitutional Law 1
Seminar 2
The Oireachtas enacts the Rent Review Stabilisation (Dublin) Act 2012 to deal with
upward-only rent review clauses – clauses in leases that provide that rent may only
be reviewed to increase it, rather than decrease it. Such clauses are despised by
many commercial tenants, who signed leases containing such clauses during the
property boom, and now feel their rent should be lowered. Section 3 of the Act
provides that any upward-only rent review clause in a lease is presumptively
invalidated if it relates to a property in certain areas of Dublin designated by the
Act. Section 4 provides that such a clause may be upheld, in spite of section 3, if it
is approved by the newly founded Rent Review Board. The Act sets up the board in
this section, but gives no indication of what procedures the board should follow in
making its determinations. Section 5 states that no compensation is to be provided
for those leaseholders who would have this clause excised from their lease.
Mr Black is a struggling property tycoon. His company, Black Industries, of which he
is the majority shareholder, owns the freehold of several properties in the Dublin
area, each of which has a long lease in favour of a commercial tenant. Each
property falls within one of the designated areas, and has an upward-only rent
review clause in the lease. He applied to the Rent Review Board under s 4, asking it
to uphold these clauses in Black Industries’ leases. Without hearing details of the
particular leases or his reasons for wishing the clauses to be retained, the Board
sent him a letter rejecting the request.
28
Mr Black feels very aggrieved by this law. He says that is already struggling to pay
back mortgages on many of the properties, and was relying on these clauses to
ensure a stable rental income to service these mortgages. He says that he relied on
these contracts, and assumed they would remain valid, and the Oireachtas has now
interfered with that. He thinks that, if this were to be necessary, he should be
compensated for the reduced value of his leases. He claims that his tenants are
very wealthy corporations, such as international restaurant and clothes chains, and
they can, for the most part, afford the rent charges. He thinks that many of them
complain about the upward rent reviews because they want lower rents so they can
make more profit.
Moreover, Mr Black complains that the designated by the law are unfairly selected
unfair. Most of the areas affected are in South Dublin City, with North Dublin City
largely unaffected. Mr Black claims this is unfair to people like him, whose
properties are mostly in central southside locations, whereas his friend Mr Grey,
who holds property in North Dublin City and similarly had upward-only rent review
clauses, is not affected. The government claims that areas were designated based
on how prolific upward only rent clauses were, and that they were trying to limit the
impact of the measure as much as possible.
Mr Black seeks your advice as to whether the Act is constitutional. Please advise
him on all relevant issues.
Relevant cases:
Blake v Attorney General [1982] IR 117
re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7
re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997] 2 IR 321
re Article 26 and Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 321
Iarnród Éireann v Ireland [1996] 3 IR 321
Dellway Investments v NAMA [2011] IESC 14
Hogan, “The Constitution, Property Rights and Proportionality” (1997) Irish
Jurist 373
29
Rachael Walsh, “The Constitution, Property Rights and Proportionality – A Re-
appraisal” (2009) 31 DULJ 1
Constitutional Law 1
Seminar 3
Consider and be prepared to discuss the following statement:
“The apparent demise of the unenumerated rights doctrine is a regrettable
development in Irish constitutional jurisprudence.”
Reading:
Article 40.3
Ryan v Attorney General [1965] IR 294
McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR 284
Norris v Attorney General [1984] IR 36
G v An Bord Uchtála [1980] IR 32
re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for
Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995 [1995] 1 IR 1
O’T v B [1998] 2 IR 321
Kinsella v Governor of Mountjoy [2011] IEHC 235
Desmond Clarke, “The Role of Natural Law in Irish Constitutional Law” (1982)
17 Irish Jurist 187
Gerard Hogan, “Unenumerated Personal Rights: Ryan’s Case Re-evaluated” (1990-
1992) 25-27 Irish Jurist 95
Richard Humphreys, “Interpreting Natural Rights” (1993-1995) Irish Jurist 221
Roderick O’Hanlon, “Natural Rights and the Irish Constitution” [1993] ILT 8
Oran Doyle, “Legal Positivism, Natural Law and the Constitution” (2009) 31 DULJ
206
Desmond Clarke, “Unenumerated Rights in Constitutional Law” (2011) 34 DULJ 101
30
Constitutional Law 1
Seminar 4
For this seminar you need to be prepared to discuss and critically analyse the
following statement:
“The courts can and should have the power to grant mandatory orders so as
to enforce constitutional rights.”
The assigned reading for Topic 8 will be of most assistance to you.
Constitutional Law 1
Module Essay
You must write an essay for the course. The essay must be submitted by 3pm on
Thursday 30 January and can be no more than 8 pages long. You must write your
essay on one of the following titles:
1 “The courts have fairly balanced the rights of accused people and the
interests of society at large in respect of both the Exclusionary Rule of
Evidence and the Right to Silence.”
Critically analyse this statement with reference to Irish case law.
2 “The courts, in their protections of property rights, have departed too much
from the text of the Constitution, focusing too greatly on external standards
of review.”
Critically analyse this statement with reference to Irish case law.
31
3 “The unenumerated rights doctrine was an appropriate response by the
courts to the social situation in Ireland in the 1960s and 1970s, but is no
longer necessary or desirable.”
Critically analyse this statement with reference to Irish case law.
4 “The courts’ interpretation of Article 15.2 of the Constitution adequately
protects the powers of the Oireachtas.”
Critically analyse this statement with reference to case law.
5 “The courts ought not to enforce constitutional rights by way of mandatory
orders.”
Critically analyse this statement with reference to case law.
6 “The courts have made it too easy for citizens to challenge the
constitutionality of legislative and governmental actions.”
Critically analyse this statement with reference to case law.
7 “The courts have provided consistent and compelling interpretations of the
Constitution.”
Critically analyse this statement with reference to case law.
8 “The Government is subject to appropriate checks and balances under the
Constitution.”
Critically analyse this statement with reference to case law.
Detailed rules for length and submission of essay
The essay should be written in 12pt font and be 1½ spaced. Do not pick an unusally
small font in order to fit in more words. If you do, I will estimate how much you have
32
exceeded the page limit and stop reading at an appropriate point. Use a sans-serif
font that is normal for documents: eg, Calibri, Trebuchet MS, Arial, or similar.
Standard default margins should be used.
Within these limiations, it should be no more than 8 pages long, including footnotes
but excluding the title page. I shall not read beyond the 8th page. You must include
your student ID number (ie your 8 digit number, not your anonymous-marking
number) on the front page of the essay. You must also print off, complete and sign
the standard plagiarism declaration and attach it to your essay prior to submission.
The essay must be handed to the secretary of the Law School on or by 3pm on
Thursday 30 January. In addition, students must sign and date the registration book
provided. Students must submit their essays only during posted Law School Office
hours; submission after such office hours will be deemed late submission, and
treated according to the penalties set out below.
If you require an extension, you must contact the module lecturer on or preferably
before the submission date. There is a strong presumption against the granting of
extensions. For example, computer failure and the like will not normally be
accepted as justifications for the granting of an extension. An extension may be
granted on such terms as the lecturer thinks are reasonable in the circumstances.
Such terms may include the abatement, in whole or in part, of relevant penalties,
and the substitution of a new deadline. If you fail to submit an essay for
assessment, you will be returned as non-satisfactory for the module.
Late submissions (which have not been granted an extension) will, without
exception, be subject to the following scale of penalties:
From the mark out of 100 returned by the examiners:
10 marks will be deducted for the first day or part thereof by which the
deadline is exceeded,
A further 10 marks will be deducted in respect of the next six day period
or part thereof by which the deadline is exceeded, and
33
A further 10 marks will be deducted in respect of each subsequent week
or part thereof by which the deadline for submission is exceeded.
For the avoidance of doubt, submission after Law School Office hours shall be
deemed to be submission on the following day, and the penalties will apply
accordingly.
If you are required, by reason of your examination result, to repeat your
Constitutional law 1 module, the following regulations apply. If you either did not
submit your essay or did not obtain a pass mark in the original essay, then you shall
be required to submit a further essay for the supplemental examination. If you
obtained a pass mark in the original essay, the mark will carry forward to the
supplemental examination. Any further essay shall be submitted by 3pm on 15
August 2014 in the same manner as set out above. Late submission of an essay for
assessment as part of the supplemental examinations will be subject to the same
penalties as laid out above.
34