Rea -v- Ireland and ors [2016] IESC 19 (09 May 2016)

Rea -v- Ireland and ors [2016] IESC 19 (09 May 2016)

Judicial review is not the appropriate legal mechanism to challenge the result of a constitutional referendum; such challenges must be brought by petition under the Referendum Act 1994. The applicant's grounds were political, not legal, and disclosed no stateable case for judicial review.

Citation
[2016] IESC 19
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Harry Rea; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: Maurice Coughlan (Referendum Returning Officer)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Referendum Challenge, Judicial Review, Constitutional Amendment, Lisbon Treaty, Sovereignty, Foreign Policy, Procedural Requirements for Referendum Petitions
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Electoral Law Referendum Challenge Judicial Review Constitutional Amendment Lisbon Treaty Sovereignty +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Rea

Applicant/appellant

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Maurice Coughlan (Referendum Returning Officer)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judicial review is an appropriate remedy to challenge the result of a constitutional referendum
  2. 2 Whether the Government acted outside its constitutional authority regarding the Lisbon Treaty 'Guarantees'
  3. 3 Whether the referendum process or result was unconstitutional or unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

Judicial review is not the appropriate legal mechanism to challenge the result of a constitutional referendum; such challenges must be brought by petition under the Referendum Act 1994. The applicant's grounds were political, not legal, and disclosed no stateable case for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs