• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Legal challange lodged against result of the Children's Ref


Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,304
Last edited:


Eoin Coir

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
16,604
doomed to failure. Nobody read the booklet, I certainly did not and the No vote was higher because of SC ruling.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,621
They are challenging on the premise that government funding may have changed the vote. Yes it did, to their advantage... :confused:
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,337
Yay, indeed. But nothing will come of it.
Don't be so sure. The SC judgement will count for something.

'Well, this is another fine mess you've got us into . . .' as Oliver used to say.
 

Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,304
doomed to failure. Nobody read the booklet, I certainly did not and the No vote was higher because of SC ruling.
I'll tell them to withdraw the challange so, Eoin has spoken:)
 

cabledude

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
6,362
I think most people will agree that we needed the referendum. We got it. We voted. But the problem is that the Government broke the rules in it campaign. For this they need a slap on the wrist. If this challenge brings that about and at the same time ensures that any future government does not break the rules, fair dues I say. But the result will probably stand. And FF SF will beat the government with this particular stick each and every time they have a referendum.
 

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,805
I'll tell them to withdraw the challange so, Eoin has spoken:)
I suspect Eoin might be a member of the judiciary, he always seemed to know a huge amount about their supposed interest in viticulture
 

44percent

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,230
Who will bear the cost of the appeal? The taxpayer. Through free legal aid or the govt. having to fork out for the mess they made. Who wins? The lawyers. Same ole same ole.
 

Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,304
Oh now I'm really pleased, not only are they challenging the fact that the Govt used taxpayers money to promote a Yes, but they are also challenging the provision within the Referendum Act which states that any breach of the act must have had a "material effect" on the result.

In my view this would be impossible to prove, given it's a secret ballot, therefore that provision is in itself unlawful,

This could be interesting!
 

Tin Foil Hat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
2,900
doomed to failure. Nobody read the booklet, I certainly did not and the No vote was higher because of SC ruling.
It's going be hilarious to hear the government try to argue that nobody read the booklet they spent €1.2m of our money distributing.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,398
Oh now I'm really pleased, not only are they challenging the fact that the Govt used taxpayers money to promote a Yes, but they are also challenging the provision within the Referendum Act which states that any breach of the act must have had a "material effect" on the result.

In my view this would be impossible to prove, given it's a secret ballot, therefore that provision is in itself unlawful,

This could be interesting!
The material effect provision stemmed from the Supreme Court itself in Coughlan. The Supreme Court are not going to rule that their own test was not just incorrect but also unconstitutional.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,398
It's going be hilarious to hear the government try to argue that nobody read the booklet they spent €1.2m of our money distributing.
They don't have to.

The burden of proof is on the applicant. The Government can simply say that it was a decisive win, and that if the Court was unwilling to find a material impact in the Divorce case, where the vote was separated by less than 1%, then precedent would dictate that they cannot logically presume a material impact on this case, unless the applicant finds a way of proving it. Which they can't.
 

Ryan Tubbs

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
3,660
My view - Yay:)
My view - this is just as suspicious as Billy Crystal's challenge to the booklet. Two apparently unconnected women, with no political involvements, of no particular wealth, means or expertise (that we know of) decide to mount a potentially costly High Court challenge on a very technical point.

There's someone or some organisation behind this, quite clearly.
 

socmonster

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
2,365
Don't think there's any hope of this succeeding. But this Government had a steering job on this referendum and they almost turned it into a photo finish and now we have a stewards' inquiry. It's been a shambles by this Government and as a previous poster said, it's the citizens again that will pay the cost of their f**k up.
 

Ryan Tubbs

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
3,660
Given the Supreme Court's (unanimous) decision in the Hanafin Case in 1996, this challenge hasn't a hope in hell of succeeding.

On edit: the only chink of light in this case would be the gap of time between the Supreme Court verdict on the booklet, and the day of the referendum - 2 days. In her judgment in the Hanafin case, Denham (now Chief Justice) suggested that this could be a factor in deciding whether the result could have been altered. She said that 7 days during the Divorce Referendum was more than enough time for the electorate to take in the result in the McKenna case.

I'd say that in an era of 24-hour news reporting and online media, 2 days of news in 2012 would easily match up to 7 days in 1996. And anyway, the result in 1996 was very close, whereas the result in 2012 was pretty resounding. That will ultimately be what kills the chances of success for these two Dear Ladies.
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top