Kershaw -v- Ireland & the Attorney General and ors [2016] IESC 35 (21 June 2016)

Kershaw -v- Ireland & the Attorney General and ors [2016] IESC 35 (21 June 2016)

The appellant's argument that mandatory seatbelt laws and the penalty points system violate his constitutional rights is unstateable and bound to fail. The requirement to wear a seatbelt is a necessary and proportionate measure for public safety, and the appellant's justification for exemption lacks objective reality. The High Court was correct to set aside leave for judicial review as the proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were vexatious. There is no credible basis for the natural law argument or for claims of damages in this forum.

Citation
[2016] IESC 35
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Eddie Kershaw; Respondents: Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party: Judge John Lindsay; Notice Party: Judge John Coughlan; Notice Party: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Setting Aside Leave for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Constitutionality of Legislation, Right to Bodily Integrity, Right to Life, Access to Courts, Proportionality of Statutory Measures, Penalty Points System, Mandatory Seatbelt Laws
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Judicial Review Constitutionality of Legislation Right to Bodily Integrity Right to Life +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eddie Kershaw

Applicant/appellant

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Judge John Lindsay

Notice Party

Judge John Coughlan

Notice Party

Director of Public Prosecutions

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Setting Aside Leave for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirement to wear a seatbelt and the penalty points system under the Road Traffic Act 2002 and related regulations are unconstitutional as applied to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct to set aside leave for judicial review on the basis that the proceedings were scandalous, vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's arguments regarding natural law and alleged Garda misconduct could ground a constitutional challenge

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's argument that mandatory seatbelt laws and the penalty points system violate his constitutional rights is unstateable and bound to fail. The requirement to wear a seatbelt is a necessary and proportionate measure for public safety, and the appellant's justification for exemption lacks objective reality. The High Court was correct to set aside leave for judicial review as the proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were vexatious. There is no credible basis for the natural law argument or for claims of damages in this forum.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order setting aside leave for judicial review affirmed; no order for stay; no damages awarded; costs reserved.