A chara, – In what was otherwise a well-written and cogently argued article (“Law reform proposals merit serious consideration”, Opinion, April 16th), Ruadhán Mac Cormaic nevertheless contributes to the maintenance of a widespread erroneous belief regarding early Free State law. Mac Cormaic states: “In the 1927 Juries Act, only landowning Irish men aged 21 or over could sit as jurors . . . opponents of extending the right to women argued that serving on juries would conflict with their duties at home . . .”
Mac Cormaic’s use of the words “extending the right to women” contributes to the view that women did not have the right to sit on juries at any time up to 1927 – this is incorrect as female jurors had served up until that point. The purpose of the relevant section of the 1927 Act was to exempt women (along with members of certain professions, etc) from automatic consideration for jury service.
His observation that it was not until after the Supreme Court judgment in the de Burca case (1976) “that women finally won the right to serve”, is also incorrect. Under the 1927 Act, women were automatically exempt, but not legally prohibited from serving on juries. If a woman wished to serve she could voluntarily apply to be included on a panel, from which selection might then be possible. What the de Burca case technically provided for in 1976 was not a woman’s “right to serve”, but the right of the State to automatically include women for selection once again.
Granted, the overall view that legislation such as the Juries Act of 1927 demonstrated the patriarchal nature of the Irish state is not in question here – lest anyone be concerned that I am advocating otherwise. There is much about the culture, societal dynamics and even the laws of 20th-century Ireland that evinced patriarchy, exclusivity and, perhaps, borderline misogyny. – Is mise,
SÉAN Ó DUIBHIR,
An Fiodan,
Gaillimh.