Referendum Act & re: Jordan and Jordan -v- Minister for Children and Youth Affairs & ors [2015] IESC 33 (24 April 2015)

Referendum Act & re: Jordan and Jordan -v- Minister for Children and Youth Affairs & ors [2015] IESC 33 (24 April 2015)

The Supreme Court held that, although the Minister breached the McKenna principles, the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that this breach materially affected the result of the referendum as a whole. The Referendum Act 1994 is constitutional and provides an appropriate balance between the rights of the people and individuals. The onus of proof remains on the petitioner throughout, and the standard is not impossible to meet. The appeals were dismissed as the statutory requirements for setting aside the referendum result were not satisfied.

Citation
[2015] IESC 33
Parties
Petitioner/appellant: Joanna Jordan; Notice Parties/respondents: Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from High Court) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Referendum Challenge, Mc Kenna Principles, Material Effect Standard, Burden of Proof in Referendum Petitions, Constitutionality of Referendum Act 1994, Remedies for Unconstitutional Conduct in Referenda
Constitutional Law Electoral Law Administrative Law Referendum Challenge Mc Kenna Principles Material Effect Standard Burden of Proof in Referendum Petitions Constitutionality of Referendum Act 1994 +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanna Jordan

Petitioner/appellant

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General

Notice Parties/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from High Court) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a breach of the McKenna principles by the Minister required the referendum result to be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the Referendum Act 1994 is unconstitutional or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 What is the correct standard and burden of proof for challenging a referendum result

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, although the Minister breached the McKenna principles, the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that this breach materially affected the result of the referendum as a whole. The Referendum Act 1994 is constitutional and provides an appropriate balance between the rights of the people and individuals. The onus of proof remains on the petitioner throughout, and the standard is not impossible to meet. The appeals were dismissed as the statutory requirements for setting aside the referendum result were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed
  • No order setting aside the referendum result