Sir, – President Michael D Higgins is now considering whether or not to send the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. He will do this after consulting with the Council of State, a committee comprised, in the main, of senior office holders, past and present.
As a matter of custom and practice – there is no constitutional impediment – the president of the day does not account for his decision-making in this important role to the people. Nor do we hear the advice given by members of the Council of State. As we, the people, elect the president, it is time that the president carried out this role in a transparent way. He or she should also expect to receive, as a normal event, written submissions as to why he should or should not refer Bills from concerned citizens; these, too, should be made public. The absence of awareness in the public of this role has helped create the impression that the president’s role is largely a sinecure so that elections to the office have descended to a kind of Rose of Tralee contest.
Presidents are slow to refer Bills to the courts. This is because of an amendment made to Article 34 of our Constitution – one of 30 amendments – in the summer of 1941 by the De Valera government of the day, availing of the transitional provisions of the 1937 Constitution. This amendment, which wasn’t put to the people, stated that once a reference made to the Supreme Court on a constitutional issue was considered and decided by the court, it could never be referred again, notwithstanding new information, demographic, scientific or cultural changes in the meantime.
Hindsight has shown, I contend, that this was an imprudent decision and ought to be reversed by referendum.
A comparatively uncontroversial example was the courts decision on the constitutionality of the Fluoridation (of public drinking water) Act which was challenged by Mrs Ryan some 60 years ago. It was held to be constitutional. With the efflux of time, many health experts and civil libertarians would argue that the courts made a decision which, if made now, would be regarded as wrong. – Yours, etc,
JOHN COLGAN, PC,
Dublin Road,
Leixlip,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – Stephen Collins’s points (Opinion, July 27th) on the in many ways unusual nature of the Council of Stare, are generally well made. However, he is in error re his remarks on Mr Justice John Murray. He retired in 2011 as Chief Justice not because he was 70, at that stage in 2011 he was I think 68, but because his seven-year term in that role had concluded. As he was not of retirement age when concluding his term as chief justice he continued and continues as an ordinary member of the Supreme Court. He is due to retire in 2015 when 72 years old – this retirement age is not the “ordinary” retirement age. A handful of judges who were appointed prior to legislation enacted in 1996 can retire at 72. Those Superior Court judges appointed in the 17 years since that legislation enjoy an ordinary retirement age of 70.
The Government rightly has other priorities but it seems proper, ages aside, to reconstitute the Council to reflect best practice in the 21st century. – Yours, etc,
ARRAN DOWLING-
HUSSEY,
Temple Court Chambers,
Dr Johnson Buildings,
Temple,
London, England.