Sir, – In an article headed, “‘Very unusual’ for President to suggest concerns around Planning Bill” (News, October 17th), Jack Horgan-Jones reports that two legal experts, Prof David Kenny and Prof Laura Cahillane, consider the action taken by President Michael D Higgins regarding the Planning Bill to be “very unusual”.
From the article, it is clear that the President acted wisely in signing the Bill into law and not referring it to the Supreme Court. In a statement he explained that issues raised in the legislation – a citizen’s right of access to justice and possible compliance with the Aarhus Convention, which confers a right to information about the environment – would be best tested in a dedicated case taken to the Supreme Court, rather than through an abstract test of constitutionality such as would occur had he exercised his right of referral.
According to the report, Prof Kenny acknowledged that the President’s reasons for not referring the Bill were “cogent” and that compliance with the Aarhus Convention would be “difficult or impossible” to review in the abstract context of a presidential referral.
The President acted in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Why are legal experts describing this as “unusual”? – Yours, etc,
Sarah Moss: People trying to sell diets enrage me on good days. On bad days I feel inadequate
Princess Margaret’s Galway island visit: ‘By the cut of you, you’re a lady. Will you take a drink?’
Analysis: EU leaders agree but disagree on defence
We built a bungalow on what was initially a boggy patch in my parents’ sloped front garden in Kerry
DAVE ALVEY,
Daingean,
Co Offaly.
