Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE LATEST LEGAL challenge against the result of the same-sex marriage referendum was thrown out by a judge in the High Court today.
The challenge had been brought by Gerry Walshe, an electrician, of Lisdeen, Co Clare, who sought to quash the Referendum Returning Officer’s decision to certify the result last August which had the effect of formally confirming the outcome of the ballot.
Ms Justice Margaret Heneghan dismissed Walshe’s demands for several orders that would have frozen proposed new legislation currently before Dáil Eireann which would enable same-sex couples to marry.
Judge Heneghan described as misconceived Mr Walshe’s interpretation of Returning Officer Riona Ni Fhlanghaile’s statutory function to sign the certificate confirming the result.
He also sought orders staying any further actions being taken in relation to the Same Sex Marriage referendum result until his case has been determined.
Walshe, whose application was opposed, argued the decision to sign the referendum certificate while he had an earlier challenge in motion (which has since been dismissed by the Supreme Court) was null and void.
Michael McDowell, SC, counsel for Ms Ni Fhlanghaile, Ireland and the Attorney General, earlier told the court it seemed the crux of Mr Walshe’s case was that he had a right to apply to the Supreme Court for leave to further challenge the outcome of the referendum within a period of 28 days.
Mr McDowell, who appeared with barrister Eoin Carolan, said Mr Walshe expected that during this period everybody else owed him a duty to maintain the status quo for the entire 28 days before the will of the people to change their constitution came into effect.
He told the court it would be strange indeed that any citizen would be able to process an appeal up to the end of the maximum 28 day period. The only means of challenging the outcome of the referendum was set out in the 1994 Referendum Act stipulating the necessity of a successful petition to the High Court for leave to challenge it.
Mr McDowell said that if one failed to get that permission the Act provided very clearly that the provisional certificate became final and once it had then the Returning Officer had no choice but to notify the Taoiseach and the President that that was the case.
He said the process was not one where everybody could step backwards and say “I’ll allow a little bit of time for Mr Walshe to make up his mind.” There was no room for delay.
The procedure adopted by Mr Walshe was doubly infirm. He was asking the court to quash an element of a process which, on the face of it, had been made in compliance with the law and he was effectively seeking to quash the decision of the Referendum Returning Officer to endorse the certificate.
Mr McDowell said Mr Walshe was also seeking an order of prohibition to stay any further legislation – an order directed to the Oireachtas to prohibit it from legislating on foot of the situation as it now stood.
In his application for leave to judicially review the decision of the Returning Officer, Mr Walshe, who represented himself, alleged that Ms Ni Fhlanghaile acted outside of her powers and with bias.
Walshe claimed the certificate should not have been signed within a 28 day period in which he believed he had a window to appeal a refusal by the Courts to allow him bring a separate legal challenge against the referendum result.
Mr Walshe’s application came after the Supreme Court last week refused to permit separate appeals by him and Maurice Lyons, from Callan, Co Kilkenny, against the rejection of their challenges to the Yes result of the referendum.
The Supreme Court decided that neither Walshe nor Lyons had met the requirements for a Supreme Court appeal as neither had raised the necessary legal point of general public importance and had raised no “points of substance.”
The court also ruled that the interests of justice did not require they be given permission to appeal the High Court’s earlier rejection of their case.
The Supreme Court had also noted that because no stay had been placed on the certificate of the referendum result after a Court of Appeal decision, “very serious constitutional consequences” might have occurred had it decided to grant leave to appeal.
The High Court dismissed the proceedings by both men on 5 June.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision on 30 July when it dismissed both men’s appeals against the High Court refusal and lifted a stay on the issuing of the final referendum certificate. They failed to have further appeals heard by the Supreme Court.
Judge Heneghan awarded the State its legal costs against Mr Walshe.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Monsters in the making….
Is could have been another James bulger case
Lucky escape from these demons !
Name and shame them .. Never mind this protecting them malarkey .. If they want to do an adult crime then they should do adult time
They aren’t adults though. Do you not see how that works?
A cautionary tale of the demonic temptations that lurk on the internet. Evil ideas and suggestions can easily attack the minds of young and old people.
Porn is not to blame for bad behaviour. The science shows porn is NOT harmful. If you’re of the feminist persuasion and believe it’s derogatory etc. then fair enough but the facts are… Michael Castleman M.A. Michael Castleman M.A. All About Sex Does Pornography Cause Social Harm? Porn causes no measurable social harm. Posted Apr 27, 2009 Many people feel offended by pornography. Those who find it odious have every right to their opinion. But some porn-haters declare that X-rated material does more than just disgust them. They contend that it contributes to significant social harm. In The Porn Trap (2008), psychotherapists Wendy and Larry Maltz assert that it’s a significant factor in sexual irresponsibility and divorce. Advertisement The late feminist activist, Andrea Dworkin, argued that by depicting women as men’s willing sexual playthings, porn contributes to rape. Her disciple, Robert Jensen, writes: “pornography alone doesn’t make men rape…[but] it may activate coercive tendencies.” And porn critic Diana Russell argues that porn undermines men’s inhibitions against rape and spurs some to commit it. Strong accusations. But are they true? The advent of Internet porn provides surprising answers. The Internet became a major force in everyday life in the late 1990s. Before then, porn was available in adult stores, through X-rated video rentals, and on some newsstands. But with the arrival of the Internet, porn availability exploded. It was just a click away 24-7 for free in tens of millions of homes and offices. In 1997, 16 percent of American adults used the Internet regularly. By 2005, the figure had quadrupled to 65 percent. The Internet has also made porn much more available to impressionable kids. How many kids, ages 10 to 17, have viewed Internet porn? According to a recent report in the journal Pediatrics, 42 percent. Advertisement If porn is a significant contributor to social harm, we would expect to see substantial increases in sexual irresponsibility, divorce, and rape since the late 1990s when the Internet suddenly made X-rated material much more available to those who might instigate sexual mayhem, overwhelmingly men. Guess what. Since the arrival of Internet porn: * Sexual irresponsibility has declined. Standard measures include rates of abortion and sexually transmitted infections. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), since 1990, the nation’s abortion rate has fallen 41 percent. The syphilis rate has plummeted 74 percent. And the gonorrhea rate has plunged 57 percent. * Teen sex has declined. The CDC says that since 1991, the proportion of teens who have had intercourse has decreased 7 percent. Teen condom use has increased 16 percent. And the teen birth rate has fallen 33 percent. * Divorce has declined. Since 1990, the divorce rate has decreased 23 percent. * Rape has declined. According to the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1995, the sexual assault rate has fallen 44 percent. Taken from Psychology Today 2009
Genuinely did not mean to post that whole thing. Point still stands.
@ TG My short post doesn’t specify porn, but mentions ‘evil ideas and suggestions’ on the internet as luring young and old people into temptation. A schoolgirl in rural Ireland a couple of years ago was hurtfully ‘trolled’ on a chat site and took her own life.
Porn is an interesting topic, suited to a different thread perhaps.
Conor, that is just excusing what they did. That child had a very narrow escape. Would you be so quick to pass it off as youthful confusion if the child had not been rescued safely? Would torture, rape or possibly murder also be explained away? Their plan was evil and depraved and some day these teens will be adults. Where is the magic light bulb that will suddenly turn on revealing to them the horror of what they were planning to do?
Those girls were 13 and 14 and knew better , James Bulgers murderes were only 10 and able to plot and plan what they did . That child was blessed and those girls should be locked up for ever
Gareth, maybe read up about Mary Bell – well before ‘evil internet’
In fairness Mary Bell was subjected to some pretty harmful things growing up.
They should never be allowed have kids or be around kids its sick – no matter what age you are to want to hurt a child – evil monsters !!!
Control your mind (brain) or it will control you!!! There is a perfect example!!
Jesus, it’s Jamie Bulger all over again. That child could have met a frightening end..
I did realise kidnapping was frowned upon by 13 Vincent, hence I’m not the topic of a journal article. These kids will be punished and re educated, clearly necessary. But they’re not demons. Or monsters. Or even evil. That sort of rhetoric leads to dehumanisation, something we’re all accusing them of. You need a clear head to deal with the situation, not a pitch fork. It’s an emotive subject and clearly I won’t be winning this one. Online commentary is fun but perhaps not the arena for debating key aspects of psychology and rehabilitation! After all these kids ARE going to get out.
I wonder if these girls parents are being investigated in some way? That these girls were going to abuse a child they way they had been?
They’re 13 yrs old. Not evil. Just totally confused, misled kids. You’d never suspect two young girls though. Anyone’s capable of going completely wrong I suppose.
We’re the two boys involved in the Jamie Bulger case just confused? No, I don’t think so. This is no different just because they were girls. The things they were researching before hand does not suggest they just wanted to mind her and play with her. They wanted to hurt her. That’s some form of evil.
Did you not no by 13 or 14 it was wrong to go out and try kidnap toddlers?
See that’s just the thing isn’t it, nobody would suspect two young girls. But psychosis knows no gender. Nobody would have suspected two young boys either before the Jamie Bulger case.
Conor
So what age is it exactly that evil kicks in at
At Jeanniejampots, yes the two ten year olds that killed little Jamie Bolger were deeply confused. That’s exactly what they were. What else is there?! Exorcism?! They are 10 year old children, completely incapable of making rational decisions on life and death. That part of the brain doesn’t even begin to develop until late teens, getting more robust in your 20′s. Hence you recruit young kids to fight wars (or believe in religion) not older more rational people. It’s why rational societies have different and far tougher penalties for adults.
One of the Jamie Bulger killers was arrested for having child pornography recently. Some people are broken from the start and it isnt all nurture issues. I wouldnt call it evil but plain dangerous.
Confused? In 2010 Venables clearly still very confused about right and wrong, was sent back to prison charged with downloading child pornography depicting children as young as two years og age being raped by adults. Well he certainly is a reformed character.
have your say