King & Ors v. Minister for the Environment & Ors [2003] IEHC 119 (19 December 2003)

King & Ors v. Minister for the Environment & Ors [2003] IEHC 119 (19 December 2003)

The Court held that the requirement for 30 assentors for non-party candidates, as set out in s. 46(4A) and (4B) of the Electoral Act, 1992 (as amended), does not constitute an unconstitutional impediment to the right to stand for election under Article 16.1.1, nor does it amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 40.1. The regulation is within the Oireachtas's power under Article 16.7, is reasonable, proportionate, and justified by the need to ensure the integrity and manageability of the electoral process. The distinction between party and non-party candidates is not arbitrary but reflects the different processes each must undergo, and is consistent with comparative international...

Citation
[2003] IEHC 119
Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas King; Plaintiff: William Stack; Plaintiff: Benedict Cooney; Defendant: Minister for the Environment; Defendant: Ireland; Defendant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Stand for Election, Equality Before the Law, Electoral Process Regulation, Discrimination Between Party and Non Party Candidates
Constitutional Law Electoral Law Right to Stand for Election Equality Before the Law Electoral Process Regulation Discrimination Between Party and Non Party Candidates

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas King

Plaintiff

William Stack

Plaintiff

Benedict Cooney

Plaintiff

Minister for the Environment

Defendant

Ireland

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 46(4A) and (4B) of the Electoral Act, 1992 (as amended) unconstitutionally restrict the right of non-party candidates to stand for election to Dáil Éireann
  2. 2 Whether the legislative provisions discriminate against non-party candidates in breach of Article 40.1 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the requirement for 30 assentors for non-party candidates, as set out in s. 46(4A) and (4B) of the Electoral Act, 1992 (as amended), does not constitute an unconstitutional impediment to the right to stand for election under Article 16.1.1, nor does it amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 40.1. The regulation is within the Oireachtas's power under Article 16.7, is reasonable, proportionate, and justified by the need to ensure the integrity and manageability of the electoral process. The distinction between party and non-party candidates is not arbitrary but reflects the different processes each must undergo, and is consistent with comparative international...

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' claims challenging the constitutionality of s. 46(4A) and (4B) of the Electoral Act, 1992 (as amended) are dismissed.