Constitutional Law I Reading List Complete

Constitutional Law 1

Module Handout

Module Instructor: Oran Doyle

Office: Room 23, The Law School, House 39

Office Hours Michaelmas Term: Tuesday 4-5pm; Wednesday 3-4pm

Email: [email protected]

Module description

Constitutional law 1 introduces students to the study of constitutional law and

theory, addressing a number of key doctrines and significant points of debate. The

module begins with a brief historical account of the development of the

Constitution, followed by an outline of the structure of government in Ireland. The

module then addresses a number of topics related to fundamental rights including

the following: constitutional rights in the criminal process, property rights and the

unenumerated rights doctrine. These rights are used as exemplars of all rights-

based analysis engaged in by the courts. Further rights are covered in the

constitutional law 2 module. The second part of the module addresses in greater

detail the separation of powers under the Irish Constitution, focusing on the limits of

and interaction between the legislative, judicial and executive powers of

government. Finally, the module addresses some general issues including the

principles that govern constitutional litigation and constitutional interpretation.

Assessment is by way of essay, participation in the module’s internet discussion

board and exam.

Learning outcomes

By the end of the module, you should be able to do the following:

Competently read a constitutional case, identifying the important points;

Identify the legal proposition or propositions that a constitutional case stands

for;

Analyse problems of constitutional law;

Advise hypothetical clients as to how their situation might be affected by

constitutional law;

1

Critically analyse contentious issues of constitutional law;

Write coherently about issues of constitutional law;

Develop your own position on issues of political controversy relevant to the

course;

Elaborate your own critically aware position of the extent to which judges are,

and should be, guided by their own political/moral beliefs in their

interpretation of constitutional law.

Substantive topics

During the course we will address most of the following topics, in roughly this order:

The history of the Constitution;

The structure of government;

Constitutional rights in the criminal context;

Property rights;

The unenumerated rights doctrine;

The legislative power;

The judicial power;

The executive power;

Principles governing constitutional litigation;

Constitutional interpretation.

Lectures and seminars

Contact hours for the module consist of lectures given by me and seminars provided

by two postgraduate students, Ms Nóra Ní Lionsigh and Mr Andrew Flynn. There are

three hours of lectures each week, between 1pm and 2pm on Monday afternoons

(MacNeill Theatre in the Hamilton Building) and between 4pm and 6pm on Thursday

afternoons (Theatre 2039 in the Arts Building.)

I employ a mixture of lecturing and socratic method in my classes. The socratic

method involves my asking questions that you must answer. This year, I will be

using a panel system. Each week, specified students will be asked questions. Your

attendance will be monitored and you cannot miss your assigned week without my

prior permission, which will only be granted if there are grave extenuating

2

circumstances. Each week, there will also be scope for general class discussion in

which all students may participate. However, if you are on the panel, you will be

asked questions. Whether or not you are on the panel, you should read the material

in advance of class as the class will be taught on the basis that all students have

read the assigned material in advance. The panels for the first four weeks are as

follows:

Monday 30 September - Thursday 3

October

Law and Business SF

Monday 7 October – Thursday 10

October

Law and Political Science SF


October

Law and French JF


October

Law and German JF

I will notify the panels for the rest of the term in mid-October, once the LLB JF class

list has settled down.

You will be assigned to small groups for the purposes of the seminars. There will be

four cycles of seminars in the term. They commence in the week beginning Monday

14 October. You will be provided with the administrative details for this in due

course. I will assign a topic and reading for each seminar. The seminars provide an

excellent opportunity for you to explore in more depth issues that we have touched

on in lectures. Attendance at seminars is compulsory and all assigned reading must

be done in advance.

Reading materials

I will provide you – at the start of the year in hardcopy form and thereafter through

the webcourse – with reading lists for each topic. This reading list consists of cases,

book chapters and journal articles. The core book for the course is Oran Doyle,

Constitutional Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Clarus Press, 2008). This book is

required reading. Reading from the book will be assigned in advance of each class.

You must read the assigned sections and be prepared to answer questions on those

sections in class.

3

Some of the cases are marked with asterisks. These are the most important cases

and must be read. Of the other material, I strongly recommend that you read some

of it, but it would be unrealistic for you to read all of it. There are three general

textbooks on constitutional law which you may find a useful complement to Text,

Cases and Materials. These are Gerard Hogan and Gerry Whyte eds, Kelly: The Irish

Constitution (4th ed, Butterworths LexisNexis, 2003), James Casey, Constitutional

Law in Ireland (3rd ed, Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell, 2000) and Michael Forde,

Constitutional Law (2nd ed, Firstlaw, 2004). A third edition of Forde is scheduled for

publication in 2013. Nutshells are not nearly adequate for the module and in the

past have led students to misunderstand material and fail exams. You should avoid

them like the plague.

In addition, you should read some of the journal articles for each topic as these will

provide you with critical insights and a more in-depth knowledge of particular

issues. Broad academic commentary is contained in Eoin Carolan and Oran Doyle

eds, The Irish Constitution: Governance and Values (Thomson Round Hall, 2008).

Eoin Carolan, The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury,

2012) is another helpful collection of essays. How much you read is a matter for

yourself. Remember that it is more important that you develop your own sense of

constitutional law than that you read everything that has ever been written on the

subject. Reading what other people have written will help you develop your own

understanding of the subject, but don’t confuse the means with the end.

Webcourse

There is a webcourse for Constitutional Law I. As a student registered for this

subject, you will have access to this webcourse. You need to go to mymodule.tcd.ie

and then log in with your TCD username and password. All module materials

(reading lists, announcements, etc) will be posted on this website. In addition, there

is an internet discussion board. It is a compulsory aspect of the module that you

participate in the discussion board by making (at least) one contribution per week.

This will be explained further in class. (See coursework requirements below.) For all

these reasons, it is important that you regularly check the webcourse and quickly

4

get accustomed to using it. If you have a difficulty in using the webcourse, please

let me know.

Examination

75% of your marks for the subject will derive from a 2 hour exam next May. The

questions will proportionately reflect material covered during the course of the year.

The exam will be open-book, meaning that you can bring any material that you

want into the exam. There will be 4 questions on the exam, of which you must

answer 2, each question carrying equal marks. The first question will be a

compulsory problem question drawing from several topics on the course. The

remaining questions will consist of three essay questions. I have lectured this

module for several years, apart from last year when it was lectured by David Kenny.

Questions in previous exam papers provide a helpful guide as to the style of

questions to expect. However, the structure has changed somewhat over the years,

so bear in mind that you will have to answer one compulsory problem question. This

means that you cannot omit any aspect of the module in your revision. I never give

hints as to what topics might be covered on the exam.

Course work requirements

25% of your marks for the module will derive from coursework. This is divided in

two. As mentioned above, participation in the webcourse’s discussion board is

compulsory. You must make 10 contributions to the webcourse during the term,

including at least one each week from the second teaching week onwards. For each

contribution that you make, you receive 0.5%. Therefore, you can receive up to 5%

of the marks for this module simply by contributing to the discussion board. You

must also write an essay for the course. The essay must be submitted by 3pm on

Thursday 30 January . I have stipulated this date to allow students work on the

essay over the Christmas break and then to allow Schol candidates in the Senior

Freshman years complete the essay after the Schol exam. If you are not taking

Schol this year, however, my strong recommendation is that you complete the

essay before the Hilary term starts so that you will be able to focus on your new

modules. Full details of essay titles and submission deadlines are set out below.

Plagiarism

5

Plagiarism is a very serious offence in a university. It is fully defined in the College

Calendar; broadly speaking, it consists of passing off as your own the work of

another, whether a fellow student or another author. If I suspect that any students

have engaged in plagiarism I shall refer the matter to their tutors and to the Head

of School, Professor Biehler. You should familiarise yourselves with the definition of

plagiarism contained in the calendar, reproduced in the course handbook, and with

the possible sanctions for this offence.

Contact hours

I am usually available to talk briefly to students after class at 2pm on Mondays and

at 6pm on Thursdays. My student office hours are as notified above and I am

generally available to meet students at these times. You can also contact me at the

email addresses above.

Topic 1

The Historical Background to the Irish Constitution

Reading

The reading for this Topic is optional. It is important that you have some historical

sense of how the Constitution was enacted, so it would be helpful for you to read

some of the following.

Constitutional History

Dermot Keogh and Andrew McCarthy, The Making of the Irish Constitution of 1937

(Mercier Press, 2007).

Hogan, The Origins of the Irish Constitution, 1928-1941, (RIA, 2012).

Forde, 1-15

Casey, 1-21

Hogan, “A Desert Island Case set in the Silver Sea: The State (Ryan) v.

Lennon” in O'Dell (ed) Leading Cases of the 20th Century (Dublin, 2000), at

80-103.

6

Keogh, “The Irish Constitutional Revolution: An Analysis of the Making of the

Constitution” in Litton (ed), The Constitution of Ireland 1937-1987, at 39.

Towey, “Hugh Kennedy and the Constitutional Development of the Irish Free

State” (1977) 12 Irish Jurist 355

Hogan, “The Constitution Review Committee of 1934” in O Muircheartaigh ed,

Ireland in the Coming Times (IPA, 1997), at 342-369.

Keane, “Fundamental Rights in Irish Law – A Note on the Historical Background” in

O’Reilly (ed), Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh

(Round Hall Press, 1992).

Hogan, “The Supreme Court and the Reference of the Offences against the

State (Amendment) Bill 1940” (2000) 35 Irish Jurist 238

Hogan, “DeValera, The Constitution and the Historians” (2005) XL IR JUR 291

Doyle, Constitutional Equality Law (Round Hall Thomson 2004), chapter 3

Governance and Values, chapters 1, 2 and 3

Coffey, “British, Commonwealth and Irish Responses to the Abdication of King

Edward VII” (2009) 44 Ir Jur 123

Gallagher, “The Irish Constitution – Its Unique Nature and the Relevance of

International Jurisprudence” (2010) 45 Ir Jur 22

Hogan, “John Hearne and the Plan for a Constitutional Court” (2011) 33 DULJ 75.

State (Ryan) v Lennon [1935] IR 170.

Topic 2

The Structure of Government: Constitutional Change

Articles 12-13: the President Article 14: the Council of State

Article 15: the Oireachtas Articles 16-17: the Dáil

Articles 18-19: the Seanad Articles 20-27: the legislative process

Article 28: the Government Articles 34-38: the Courts

Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill

2013

Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution (Court of Appeal) Bill 2013

7

Richard Sinnott, “The Electoral System” in John Coakley and Michael Gallagher

(eds), Politics in the Republic of Ireland (5th ed, Routledge, 2010) 111

Michael Gallagher, “The Oirecahtas: President and Parliament” in John Coakley and

Michael Gallagher (eds), Politics in the Republic of Ireland (5th ed, Routledge, 2010)

198

Eoin Carolan, “Recovering the Republic? Democratic Representation and the Theory

of Mixed Government” (2012) 47(2) JUR 173

John Coakley, “An Ambigious Office? The Position of the Head of State in the Irish

Constitution” (2012) 47(2) JUR 43

Oran Doyle, “The Dynamics of Constitutional Change” (2013) 102(2) Studies: An

Irish Quarterly Review

Jim O’Callaghan, “Seanad Éireann – An Opportunity for Real Political Reform” in Eoin

Carolan (ed), The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury,

2012)

Jane Suiter, “A Constitutional Moment: Taking Advantage of a Confluence of Events”

in Eoin Carolan (ed), The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects

(Bloomsbury, 2012)

John O’Dowd, “The Constitutional Convention: A Comment” in Eoin Carolan (ed),

The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)

Topic 3

Criminal Rights in the Constitution

Article 38

Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 2

Scope of Article 38

Heaney v Ireland [1994] 3 IR 593

Melling v Ó Mathghamhna [1962] IR 1

*Murphy v GM [2001] 4 IR 113

Unconstitutionally obtained evidence

8

*People (Attorney General) v O’Brien [1965] IR 142

People (DPP) v Shaw [1982] IR 1

*People (DPP) v Kenny [1990] 2 IR 110

People (DPP) v Balfe [1998] 4 IR 50

DPP v Mallon [2011] !ECCA 29

Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11

Walsh v Ó Buachalla [1991] 1 IR 56

People (DPP) v AD [2012] IESC 33

DPP (Walsh) v Cash [2007] IEHC 108, [2010] IESC 1

Moore v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2010] IEHC 466

The right to be provided with a lawyer

*State (Healy) v Donoghue [1976] IR 325

*Carmody v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2005] IEHC 10, [2009]

IESC 71

*DPP v Healy [1990] 2 IR 73

People (DPP) v Buck [2002] 2 IR 268

People (DPP) v O’Brien [2005] 2 IR 206

The right to silence

*Heaney v Ireland [1996] 1 IR 580

Rock v Ireland [1997] 3 IR 484

Sanders v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 313

Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29

*Re National Irish Bank [1999] 3 IR 145

Dunnes Stores Ireland Co Ltd v Ryan [2002] 2 IR 60

People (DPP) v Finnerty [1999] 4 IR 364

DPP v Fitzpatrick [2012] IECCA 74

Unfair pre-trial publicity

D v DPP [1994] 2 IR 465

Z v DPP [1994] 2 IR 476

Magee v O’Dea [1994] 1 IR 500

DPP v Haugh (No 2) [2001] 1 IR 162

9

The duty to seek out and preserve evidence

Murphy v DPP [1989] ILRM 71

*Braddish v DPP [2001] 3 IR 127

Dunne v DPP [2002] 2 IR 305

Bowes and McGrath v DPP [2003] 2 IR 25

O’Driscoll v DPP [2009] IESC 23

*Savage v DPP [2009] I IR 185

CD v DPP [2009] IESC 70

Byrne v DPP [2010] IESC 54

Rynn v DPP [2011] IEHC 241

The right to an early trial

State (O’Connell) v Fawsitt [1986] IR 362

*SH v DPP [2006] 3 IR 575

MacFarlane v DPP [2007] 1 IR 134; McFarlane v Ireland ECHR [2010] ECHR

31333/06

People (DPP) v Quilligan (No 3) [1992] 2 IR 305

NC v DPP [2001] IESC 54

O’B v DPP [2010] IESC 41

Kennedy v DPP [2012] IESC 34

Repeated retrials

AP v DPP [2011] IESC 2

The presumption of innocence

*O’Leary v Attorney General [1993] 1 IR 102

Hardy v Ireland [1994] 2 IR 550

No right to confrontational cross-examination

Re Haughey [1971] IR 217

Donnelly v DPP [1998] 1 IR 321

The right to jury trial

10

Article 38.5

Melling v Ó Mathghamhna [1962] IR 1

Conroy v Attorney General [1965] IR 411

People (DPP) v O’Shea [1982] IR 384

*De Burca v Attorney General {1976] IR 38 (judgment of Henchy J)

O’Callaghan v Attorney General [1993] 2 IR 17

State (DPP) v Walsh [1981] IR 412

Substantive Protections: Content of the criminal law

Article 15.5.1

Doyle v An Taoiseach [1986] ILRM 693

Magee v Culligan [1992] 1 IR 233

*King v Attorney General [1981] IR 233

Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1996] 2 IR 321

*C v Ireland [2006] IESC 33

*Dokie v DPP [2011] IEHC 110

*Douglas v DPP [2013] IEHC 343

Books

Kelly, pp1039-1239

Forde, pp404-483

Articles

Yvonne Daly, “Does the Buck Stop Here: An examination of the Right to Pre-Trial

Legal Advice in the Light of O’Brien v DPP” (2006) 28 DULJ 345


Yvonne Daly, “Is Silence Golden: the Legislative and Judicial Treatment of Pre-Trial

Silence in Ireland” (2009) 31 DULJ 35

Yvonne Daly, “Exclusion of Evidence: DPP (Walsh) v Cash” International Journal Of Evidence

And Proof (2011) 15 62.

Yvonne Daly “Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence in Ireland: Protectionism,

Deterrence and the Winds of Change.” Irish Criminal Law Journal, 19(2) 40.

Gerry Whyte, “A Tale of Two Case- Divergent Approaches of the Irish Supreme Court

to Distributive Justice” (2010) 32 DULJ 365

11

David Prendergast, “The Constitutionality of Strict Liability in Criminal Law” (2011)

33 DULJ 285.

Topic 4

Property Rights

Article 40.3 and Article 43


Character of property right and early cases

*re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7

*Buckley v Attorney General [1950] IR 67

Quinn v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd [2013] IEHC 116

*Attorney General v Southern Industrial Trust (1961) 109 ILTR 161

Blake v Attorney General [1982] IR 117

Dreher v Irish Land Commission [1984] ILRM 94

Standards of review for property rights: proportionality

*Iarnród Éireann v Ireland [1996] 3 IR 321

*Daly v Revenue Commissioners [1995] 3 IR 1

re Article 26 and Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 321

Courts’ attitude to property rights restrictions in different contexts

Land

*Blake v Attorney General [1982] IR 117

Shirley v AO Gorman & Company Ltd [2006] IEHC 27; [2012] IESC 5.

Central Dublin Development Association v Attorney General (1975) 109 ILTR 69

Taxation

*Madigan v Attorney General [1986] ILRM 136

MhicMhathúna v Ireland [1995] 1 IR 484

Daly v Revenue Commissioners [1995] 3 IR 1

12

Factors that affect how courts view property rights restrictions

Irrational Restrictions on Rights

*Blake v Attorney General [1982] IR 117

*Brennan v Attorney General [1983] ILRM 449 (HC); [1984] ILRM 355 (SC)

BUPA Ireland Ltd v Health Insurance Authority 23 November 2006 (HC)

Retrospection

re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7

Public good at private cost

*re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997] 2 IR 321

*re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004


Compensation

*Central Dublin Development Association v Attorney General (1975) 109 ILTR 69


*re Article 26 and Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 321

O’Callaghan v Commissioners of Public Works [1985] ILRM 364

Participation as Protection of Rights

Dellway Investments v NAMA [2011] IESC 14

What property is constitutionally protected?

Money

Buckley v Attorney General [1950] IR 67

Objects

Southern Industrial Trust (1961) 109 ILTR 161

Land

Central Dublin Development Association v Attorney General (1975) 109 ILTR 69

Intellectual property

Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Cody [1998] 4 IR 50

Running a business

re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997] 2 IR 321

Mutual contractual obligations

Chestvale Properties Ltd v Glackin [1992] ILRM 221

J & J Haire & Company Ltd v Minister for Health and Children [2009] IEHC 562

Litigation

13

Dellway Investments Ltd v NAMA [2011] IESC 13 and 14

*re Health (Amendment) (No2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7

Tuohy v Courtney [1994] 3 IR 1

Shares

Kerry Co-Operative Creameries Ltd v An Bord Bainne [1990] ILRM 664

O’Neill v Ryan [1993] ILRM 557

Re Eylewood Ltd [2010] IEHC 57

Value created by regulation – intangible property

*Lovett v Minister for Education [1997] 1 ILRM 89

State (FPH Properties SA) v An Bord Pleanála [1987] IR 698

*Pine Valley Developments v Minister for the Environment [1987] IR 23


*Maher v Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development [2001] 2 IR 139

*Hempenstall v Minister for the Environment [1994] 2 IR 20

Standing to invoke property rights

Private Motorists’ Provident Society v Attorney General [1983] IR 339

*Iarnród Éireann v Ireland [1996] 3 IR 321

Books

Kelly, 1969-2028

Casey, 662-684

Forde, 727-763

Foley, Deference and the Presumption of Constitutionality (IPA, 2008) [This book is

not specifically about property rights but it is about the courts’ deference to the

legislative restriction of rights. We are exploring that topic through the prism of

property rights.]

Articles

McCormack, “Blake and its Aftermath” (1983) 5 DULJ 205

Kingston, “Rich People have Rights Too? The Status of Property as a

Fundamental Human Right” in Heffernan ed, Human Rights: A European

Perspective (Round Hall Press, 1994) 284.

Keane, “Land Use, Compensation and the Community” (1983) 18 Ir Jur.

14

McBride, “The Right to Property” (1996) 21 European Law Review Human

Rights Survey 40

Barrington, “Private Property under the Irish Constitution” (1973) 8 Ir Jur 1

Hogan, “The Constitution, Property Rights and Proportionality” (1997) Irish

Jurist 373

Rachael Walsh, “The Constitution, Property Rights and Proportionality – A Re-

appraisal” (2009) 31 DULJ 1

Rachael Walsh, “Private Property Rights in the Drafting of the Irish Constitution: A

Communitarian Compromise” (2011) 33 DULJ 86

David Kenny, “A Dormant Doctrine of Overbreadth: Abstract Review and IUS Tertii in

Irish Proportionality Analysis” (2010) 32 DULJ 24


David Kenny, “Fair Procedures in Irish Administrative Law: Towards a Duty to Act

Fairly in Dellway Investments Ltd v Nama” (2011) 34 DULJ 47

Ailbhe O’Neill, “Fair Procedures – an Inviolable Constitutional Requirement” (2011)

33 DULJ 319

Brian Foley, “The BUPA Ireland case and Constitutional Litigation” (2010) 45 Ir Jur

230

Topic 5

The Unenumerated Rights Doctrine

[NB that two articles are required reading for this topic.]

Article 40.3


*Ryan v Attorney General [1965] IR 294

Macauley v Minister for Posts and Telegraphs [1966] IR 345

State (M) v Attorney General [1979] IR 73

Kennedy v Irleand [1987] IR 587

*McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR 284

*Norris v Attorney General [1984] IR 36

15

State (Nicoloau) v An Bord Uchtála [1966] IR 567

*G v An Bord Uchtála [1980] IR 32

*Re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for

Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995 [1995] 1 IR 1

*O’T v B [1998] 2 IR 321

TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259

*Kinsella v Governor of Mountjoy [2011] IEHC 235

*Fleming v Ireland [2013] IEHC 2; [2013] IESC 19

Books

Kelly, pp1413-1446

Articles

Desmond Clarke, “The Role of Natural Law in Irish Constitutional Law” (1982)

17 Irish Jurist 187

*Gerard Hogan, “Unenumerated Personal Rights: Ryan’s Case Re-evaluated” (1990-

1992) 25-27 Irish Jurist 95

*Richard Humphreys, “Interpreting Natural Rights” (1993-1995) Irish Jurist 221

Roderick O’Hanlon, “Natural Rights and the Irish Constitution” [1993] ILT 8

Oran Doyle, “Legal Validity: Reflections on the Irish Constitution” (2003) 25 DULJ 56

Adrian Twomey, “The Death of Natural Law” [1995] ILT 270

Mark de Blacam, “Justice and Natural Law” (1997) 32 Irish Jurist 323

Donal Coffey III, “Article 28.3.3, The Natural Law and the Judiciary - Three Easy

Pieces” (2004) 22 ILT 310

Oran Doyle, “Legal Positivism, Natural Law and the Constitution” (2009) 31 DULJ

206

Desmond Clarke, “Unenumerated Rights in Constitutional Law” (2011) 34 DULJ 101

Gerard Hogan, “The Judicial Thought and Prose of Mr Justice Seamus Henchy”

(2011) 46 (1) Ir Jur 96

Aileen Kavanagh, “The Irish Constitution at 75 Years: Natural Law, Christian Values

and the Idea of Justice” (2012) 47 (2) Ir Jur 71

Eoin Daly, “Public philosophy and constitutional interpretation after natural law:

republican horizons” in Eoin Carolan (ed), The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives

and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)

16

Declan O’Keeffe, “God, the Natural Law and the 1937 Constitution” in Eoin Carolan

(ed), The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)

Aileen Kavanagh, “Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments from Irish Free

State to Irish Republic” in Eoin Carolan (ed), The Constitution of Ireland:

Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)

Yaniv Roznai, “The Theory and Practice of Supra-Constitutional Limits on

Constitutional Amendments” (2013) 62 International and Comparative Law

Quarterly 557

Topic 6

The Legislative Power

Article 15

Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 11 and 15

General principles and the “Rule of Law”

The State (Walshe) v Murphy [1981] IR 275

Murphy v Attorney General [1982] IR 237

Kennedy v Law Society of Ireland [2002] 2 IR 458

Subordinate legislation

*City View Press Ltd v An Comhairle Oiliúna [1980] IR 381

McDaid v Sheehy [1991] 1 IR 1

*Laurentiu v Minister for Justice [1999] 4 IR 1

*Leontjava v DPP and Chang v DPP [2004] 1 IR 591


*John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd v Catering JLC [2011] IEHC 277

*McGowan & ors v Labour Court Ireland & anor [2013] IESC 21

Interaction of non-delegation principle and ultra vires principle

*Cooke v Walsh [1984] IR 710

Harvey v Minister for Social Welfare [1990] 2 IR 232

17

Primary legislation as a deliberative process

*Leontjava v DPP and Chang v DPP [2004] 1 IR 591

European Community Measures

*Meagher v Minister for Agriculture and Food [1994] 1 IR 329

*Maher v Minister for Agriculture and Food [2001] 2 IR 139

McCauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd v Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland

The power of inquiry

Maguire v Ardagh [2002] 1 IR 385

30th Amendment of the Constitution (Houses of the Oireachtas Inquiries) Bill 2011

Books

Kelly, pp234-251

Forde, pp173-184

David Gwynn Morgan, The Separation of Powers in the Irish Constitution (Round

Hall, Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), pp222-263

Annual Review 2004 for discussion of Leontjava and Chang.

Articles

Neil Maddox, “Legislation by Delegation - The Principles and Policies Test in Irish

Law” (2004) 22 ILT 293

Hogan, “The Implementation of EU Law in Ireland: the Meaghar Case and the

Democratic Deficit” (1994) 3 Irish Journal of European Law 190

Noel Travers, “The Reception of Community Legislation into Irish Law and Related

Issues Revisited” (2003) 38 IR JUR 58

Eoin Carolan, “Democratic Control or ‘High-Sounding Hocus-Pocus’? – A Public

Choice Analysis of the Non-Delegation Doctrine” (2007) 29 DULJ 111

Governance and Values, chapters 8 and 9

John O’Dowd, “Knowing how Way Leads on to Way: Some Reflections on the

Abbeylara Decision” (2003) 38 Ir Jur 162.

Eoin Carolan, “Democratic Accountability and the Non-Delegation Doctrine” (2011)

33 DULJ 220

18

Maria Cahill, “Constitutional Exclusion Clauses, Article 29.4.6, and the Constitutional

Reception of European Law” (2011) 34 DULJ 74.

David Kenny, “The Separation of Powers and Remedies: The Legislative Power and

Remedies for Unconstitutional Legislation in Comparative Perspective” in Eoin

Carolan (ed.) The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury

Professional, 2012)

Topic 7

The Executive Power

Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution


The executive power of the State, not the executive power in the State

Murphy v Dublin Corporation [1972] IR 215

Explicit executive powers

Boland v An Taoiseach [1974] IR 338

*Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713

*Pringle v An Taoiseach [2012] IESC 47

McGimpsey v Ireland [1990] 1 IR 110

*Horgan v An Taoiseach [2003] 2 ILRM 357

Dubsky v Government of Ireland [2005] IEHC 442

*Pringle v Ireland [2012] IESC 47

Implicit executive powers

Haughey v Moriarty [1999] 3 IR 1

Lobe v Minister for Justice [2003] 1 IR 1

*Bode v Minister for Justice [2007] IESC 62

*Laurentiu v Minister for Justice [1999] 4 IR 26

Cabinet confidentiality

*Attorney General v Hamilton (No1) [1993] 2 IR 251

19

Ambiorix v Minister for the Environment [1992] 1 IR 277

An Taoiseach v Commissioner of Environmental Information [2010] IEHC 241

Exercise of executive power

MacDonncha v Minister for Education and Skills [2013] IEHC 226

Copymoore Ltd v The Commissioner of Public Works in Ireland [2013] IEHC 230

Members of the Government

Riordan v An Taoiseach [1997] 3 IR 502

Kelly, pp421-564

Casey, pp189-218 and 230-238

Forde, pp118-139

David Gwynn Morgan, The Separation of Powers in the Irish Constitution (Round

Hall, Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), chapter on executive power

McDermott, “The Separation of Powers and the Doctrine of Non-Justiciability” (2000)

35 Irish Jurist 55

Ruane, “The Separation of Powers and the Grant of Mandatory Orders to Enforce

Constitutional Rights” [2000] 5 Bar Review 416 and [2002] 7;4 Bar Review

Casey, “Crotty v An Taoiseach: A Comparative Perspective” in O’Reilly (ed), Human

Rights and Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh (Round Hall Press,

1992).

Governance and Values, chapters 10, 11, 12 and 13

Gavin Barrett, “The Evolving Door To Europe: Reflections on an Eventful Forty Years

for Article 29.4 of the Irish Constitution” (2012) 47(2) JUR 132

Maria Cahill, “Judicial Conceptions of Sovereignty” in Eoin Carolan (ed), The

Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)

David Fennelly, “Crotty’s Long Shadow: the European Union, the United Nations and

the Changing Framework of Ireland’s International Relations” in Eoin Carolan (ed),

The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury, 2012)

Topic 8

20

The Judicial Power

Articles 34-36 of the Constitution


The character of the judicial power

McDonald v Bord na gCon [1965] IR 217

*Goodman International v Hamilton (No1) [1992] 2 IR 542

Croke v Smith (No2) [1998] 1 IR 101

The reservation of the judicial power to the courts

*Buckley v Attorney General [1950] IR 67

The limits of the judicial power

Boland v An Taoiseach [1974] IR 338

Sinnott v Minister for Education [2001] 2 IR 545

*TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 247

Judicial impeachment

Curtin v Clerk of Dáil Éireann

Judicial salaries

O’Byrne v Minister for Finance [1959] IR 1

29th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2011

Articles

Ronan Keane, “Across the Cherokee Frontier of Irish Constitutional Jurisprudence” in

Eoin O’Dell ed, Leading Cases of the Twentieth Century 185

Gerard Hogan, “The Sinn Féin Funds Judgment Fifty Years on” (1997) 2(9) Bar

Review 375

David Gwynn Morgan, “Judicial-o-centric separation of powers on the wane?” (2004)

xxxix IR JUR 142

Alan Keating & Anthony Lowry, “The Seperation of Powers - The Supreme Courts

Approach to Affirmative Duties - Part 1 and 2” [2003] 21 ILT 103; [2003] 21 ILT 118

21

Mark De Blacam, “Children, constitutional rights and the separation of powers”

(2002) 37 Ir Jur 113

Ruane, “The Separation of Powers and the Grant of Mandatory Orders to Enforce

Constitutional Rights” [2000] 5 Bar Review 416 and [2002] 7;4 Bar Review

McDermott, “The Separation of Powers and the Doctrine of Non-Justiciability” (2000)

35 Irish Jurist 55

Gerry Whyte, “The Role of the Supreme Court in our Democracy: A Response to Mr

Justice Hardiman” (2006) 28 DULJ 1

Governance and Values, chapter 14

David Gwynn Morgan, “The Pension Levy and Judicial Independence” (2009) 27 ILT

63

Donal Coffey III, “The Judicial Pension Levy: A Reply to Professor Gwynn Morgan”

(2009) 27 ILT 271

John O' Dowd, “Judges In Whose Cause? The Irish Bench After the Judges' Pay

Referendum” (2012) 47(2) JUR 102

Topic 9

Rules and Principles Governing Constitutional Litigation


Standing and Ius Tertii

*Cahill v Sutton [1980] IR 269

Norris v Attorney General [1984] IR 36

Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (Ire) Ltd v Coogan [1989] IR 734

*Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713

McKenna v An Taoiseach (No2) [1995] 2 IR 10

TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259

Cox v Ireland [1992] 2 IR 503

Fleming v Ireland [2013] IEHC 2; [2013] IESC 19

Presumption of constitutionality

Pigs Marketing Board v Donnelly [1939] IR 413

22

Macauley v Minister for Posts and Telegraphs [1966] IR 345

Judicial Restraint

M v An Bord Uchtála [1977] IR 287

Murphy v Roche [1987] IR 106

White v Dublin City Council [2004] 1 IR 545

Double construction rule

McDonald v Bord na gCon [1965] IR 217

*East Donegal Co-operative Ltd v Attorney General [1970] IR 317

Loftus v Attorney General [1979] IR 211

Re Haughey [1971] IR 217

Kelly v Minister for the Environment [2002] 4 IR 191

*Quinn v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd [2013] IEHC 116

Severance

*Maher v Attorney General [1973] IR 140

Desmond v Glackin (No2) [1993] 3 IR 67

Douglas v DPP [2013] IEHC 343

Effects of finding of unconstitutionality

State (Byrne) v Frawley [1978] IR 326

*Murphy v Attorney General [1982] IR 241

Muckley v Ireland. [1985] IR 472

McDonnell v Ireland [1998] 1 IR 134

*A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] IESC 45

*Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11

DPP v Cunningham [2012] IECCA 64

DPP v Kavanagh, Farrelly & Corcoran [2012] IECCA 65

People (DPP) v O’Brien [2012] IECCA 68

DPP v Thomas Hughes [2012] IECCA 69

O’Callaghan v Governor of Cork Prison [2012] IEHC 325

Constitutional Lacunae in Acts

23

Somjee v Minister for Justice [1981] ILRM 324

D v Ireland [2009] IEHC 206

*Carmody v DPP [2009] IESC 71

G v District Judge Murphy [2011] IEHC 445

Articles

David Kenny, “A Dormant Doctrine of Overbreadth: Abstract Review and Ius Tertii in

Irish Proportionality Analysis” (2010) 32 DULJ 24

David Kenny, “The Separation of Powers and Remedies: The Legislative Power and

Remedies for Unconstitutional Legislation in Comparative Perspective” in Eoin

Carolan (ed.) The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects (Bloomsbury

Professional, 2012)

Paul Gallagher, ‘The Irish Constitution—Its Unique Nature And The Relevance Of

International Jurisprudence’ (2010) 45 Ir Jur (ns) 22;

Eoin Carolan, ‘The relationship between judicial remedies and the separation of

powers: collaborative constitutionalism and the suspended declaration of invalidity’,

(2011) 46 Ir Jur (ns) 180.

Books

Kelly, pp 807-911

Casey, pp 332-376

Forde, pp 875-903

Topic 10

Constitutional Interpretation


Interpreting words

Sinnott v Minister for Education [2001] 2 IR 545

Attorney General v Paperlink [1984] ILRM 373

Dillane v Attorney General [1981] ILRM 167

Quinn’s Supermarket v Attorney General [1972] IR 1

24

People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v O’Shea [1982] IR 384

Interpreting values

McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR 284


State (Nicoloau) v An Bord Uchtála [1965] IR 567

Conroy v Attorney General [1965] IR 411

Gilligan v Revenue Commissioners [2006] IEHC

Leontjava and Chang v DPP [2004] 1 IR 591

C v Ireland [2006] IESC 33

Books

Kelly, pp3-38

Forde, pp50-64

Articles

Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law (Oxford, 1996), introduction

Aileen Kavanagh, “The quest for legitimacy in constitutional interpretation” (1997)

32 Ir Jur 195

Governance and Values, chapters 4 and 6


Seminar 1

In preparation for this seminar, please read the assigned cases below and then

consider this problem. The problem raises a number of legal issues. Start by making

a note of each issue. You should be able to spot the issues just through your general

knowledge of the area of law, and your notes from class. For example, you should

know that the question of unconstitutionally obtained evidence raises legal

concerns. This then becomes an issue in the problem question. When you have

identified the issues, try to work out the answer to each one. This will involve

reading the assigned case law to work out what the law is on a particular issue.

When you have done that, you need to apply the law to each issue so that you can

25

come to a conclusion: does Walter have a good ground of objection or not? Do this

for each issue. When you have done all this, you will be in a position to provide

advice and answer any question that may be put to you in the seminar.

Problem:

Walter White is at home one morning reading the complete works of

Immanuel Kant. This is interrupted when the Gardaí call by. The Gardaí go

into Walter’s house, showing him a warrant. As they carry out the search,

Walter examines the warrant. It lists the name of the person living in the

premises as “Walter Whitman,” not Walter White. It misdescribes his address;

he lives at 21 Moon Court, Terenure, whereas the warrant is made out for 21,

The Moon, Rathgar, an address which does not exist. He later points these

errors out to the Gardaí, who apologise, and say they did not realise their

error, but the search is already complete. In his spare bedroom, the Gardaí

find a sawn off shotgun and 2 kg of methamphetamine, or crystal meth.

Garda Henry Sullivan arrests Walter pursuant to section 4 of the Criminal Law

Act 1997. Walter is taken to a local police station where he asks to be

provided with a solicitor. The Gardaí make contact with Ms Goodman,

Walter’s solicitor, and commence questioning Walter at 1pm.

At 1.25pm, Ms Goodman arrives and asks to speak to Walter. The station

sergeant informs the interviewing team that the solicitor has arrived and then

ask Walter if he would like to speak to her. He says that he would like to

speak to her, but the Gardaí continue questioning him anyway. At 1.50pm he

states that the shotgun belongs to him. At 2pm, the Gardaí read over the

notes of the interview to that stage and Walter signs them. He is then

allowed to speak to his solicitor in private. The interview recommences at

3pm. At 4.30pm, Walter admits that the drugs are his, and that he was going

to give them to a Dublin-based criminal called Gus, who sells Meth from his

fast food outlet. Walter again signs a note of this portion of the interview. He

is then charged with offences in relation to the shotgun and the drugs and is

ultimately sent forward for trial in the Circuit Criminal Court.

26

Shortly after Walter is charged, Walter’s solicitor discovers several things.

First, the warrant was issued under a new search power in the Drugs

Searches Act, 2012, where a Garda Superintendent who was involved with

the case can authorise a search. However, the warrant here was issued by

Superintendent Hank Schrader who works in a different garda station.

Secondly, when she writes to the Gardaí to request inspection of the shotgun

and the drugs, it emerges that the Gardaí have misplaced the drugs. Please

advise Walter as to whether the prosecution can, at trial, rely on the following

evidence:

The shotgun;

Garda Sullivan’s recollection of finding the drugs;

His confession to possession of the shotgun;

His confession to possession of the drugs.

[please assume that the arrest of Walter was lawful regardless of the legality of the

search – that is, assume the Gardaí had a basis to arrest him even if they had not

found the items in his house.]

Please also be prepared to discuss with your seminar tutor whether or not you

agree with the Exclusionary Rule in its current form.

Relevant reading:

Article 38

Doyle, Text, Cases and Materials, chapter 2

People (Attorney General) v O’Brien [1965] IR 142

People (DPP) v Shaw [1982] IR 1

People (DPP) v Kenny [1990] 2 IR 110

People (DPP) v Balfe [1998] 4 IR 50

People (DPP) v AD [2012] IESC 33

Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11

DPP v Mallon [2011] IECCA 29

DPP (Walsh) v Cash [2007] IEHC 108

27

DPP v Healy [1990] 2 IR 73

People (DPP) v Buck [2002] 2 IR 268

People (DPP) v O’Brien [2005] 2 IR 206

Braddish v DPP [2001] 3 IR 127

Bowes and McGrath v DPP [2003] 2 IR 25

Savage v DPP [2009] I IR 185

Yvonne Daly, “Does the Buck Stop Here: An examination of the Right to Pre-Trial

Legal Advice in the Light of O’Brien v DPP” (2006) 28 DULJ 345


Seminar 2

The Oireachtas enacts the Rent Review Stabilisation (Dublin) Act 2012 to deal with

upward-only rent review clauses – clauses in leases that provide that rent may only

be reviewed to increase it, rather than decrease it. Such clauses are despised by

many commercial tenants, who signed leases containing such clauses during the

property boom, and now feel their rent should be lowered. Section 3 of the Act

provides that any upward-only rent review clause in a lease is presumptively

invalidated if it relates to a property in certain areas of Dublin designated by the

Act. Section 4 provides that such a clause may be upheld, in spite of section 3, if it

is approved by the newly founded Rent Review Board. The Act sets up the board in

this section, but gives no indication of what procedures the board should follow in

making its determinations. Section 5 states that no compensation is to be provided

for those leaseholders who would have this clause excised from their lease.

Mr Black is a struggling property tycoon. His company, Black Industries, of which he

is the majority shareholder, owns the freehold of several properties in the Dublin

area, each of which has a long lease in favour of a commercial tenant. Each

property falls within one of the designated areas, and has an upward-only rent

review clause in the lease. He applied to the Rent Review Board under s 4, asking it

to uphold these clauses in Black Industries’ leases. Without hearing details of the

particular leases or his reasons for wishing the clauses to be retained, the Board

sent him a letter rejecting the request.

28

Mr Black feels very aggrieved by this law. He says that is already struggling to pay

back mortgages on many of the properties, and was relying on these clauses to

ensure a stable rental income to service these mortgages. He says that he relied on

these contracts, and assumed they would remain valid, and the Oireachtas has now

interfered with that. He thinks that, if this were to be necessary, he should be

compensated for the reduced value of his leases. He claims that his tenants are

very wealthy corporations, such as international restaurant and clothes chains, and

they can, for the most part, afford the rent charges. He thinks that many of them

complain about the upward rent reviews because they want lower rents so they can

make more profit.

Moreover, Mr Black complains that the designated by the law are unfairly selected

unfair. Most of the areas affected are in South Dublin City, with North Dublin City

largely unaffected. Mr Black claims this is unfair to people like him, whose

properties are mostly in central southside locations, whereas his friend Mr Grey,

who holds property in North Dublin City and similarly had upward-only rent review

clauses, is not affected. The government claims that areas were designated based

on how prolific upward only rent clauses were, and that they were trying to limit the

impact of the measure as much as possible.

Mr Black seeks your advice as to whether the Act is constitutional. Please advise

him on all relevant issues.

Relevant cases:

Blake v Attorney General [1982] IR 117


re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997] 2 IR 321


Iarnród Éireann v Ireland [1996] 3 IR 321

Dellway Investments v NAMA [2011] IESC 14

Hogan, “The Constitution, Property Rights and Proportionality” (1997) Irish

Jurist 373

29

Rachael Walsh, “The Constitution, Property Rights and Proportionality – A Re-

appraisal” (2009) 31 DULJ 1


Seminar 3

Consider and be prepared to discuss the following statement:

“The apparent demise of the unenumerated rights doctrine is a regrettable

development in Irish constitutional jurisprudence.”

Reading:

Article 40.3

Ryan v Attorney General [1965] IR 294

McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR 284

Norris v Attorney General [1984] IR 36

G v An Bord Uchtála [1980] IR 32

re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for

Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995 [1995] 1 IR 1

O’T v B [1998] 2 IR 321

Kinsella v Governor of Mountjoy [2011] IEHC 235

Desmond Clarke, “The Role of Natural Law in Irish Constitutional Law” (1982)

17 Irish Jurist 187

Gerard Hogan, “Unenumerated Personal Rights: Ryan’s Case Re-evaluated” (1990-

1992) 25-27 Irish Jurist 95

Richard Humphreys, “Interpreting Natural Rights” (1993-1995) Irish Jurist 221

Roderick O’Hanlon, “Natural Rights and the Irish Constitution” [1993] ILT 8

Oran Doyle, “Legal Positivism, Natural Law and the Constitution” (2009) 31 DULJ

206

Desmond Clarke, “Unenumerated Rights in Constitutional Law” (2011) 34 DULJ 101

30


Seminar 4

For this seminar you need to be prepared to discuss and critically analyse the

following statement:

“The courts can and should have the power to grant mandatory orders so as

to enforce constitutional rights.”

The assigned reading for Topic 8 will be of most assistance to you.


Module Essay

You must write an essay for the course. The essay must be submitted by 3pm on

Thursday 30 January and can be no more than 8 pages long. You must write your

essay on one of the following titles:

1 “The courts have fairly balanced the rights of accused people and the

interests of society at large in respect of both the Exclusionary Rule of

Evidence and the Right to Silence.”

Critically analyse this statement with reference to Irish case law.

2 “The courts, in their protections of property rights, have departed too much

from the text of the Constitution, focusing too greatly on external standards

of review.”


31

3 “The unenumerated rights doctrine was an appropriate response by the

courts to the social situation in Ireland in the 1960s and 1970s, but is no

longer necessary or desirable.”


4 “The courts’ interpretation of Article 15.2 of the Constitution adequately

protects the powers of the Oireachtas.”

Critically analyse this statement with reference to case law.

5 “The courts ought not to enforce constitutional rights by way of mandatory

orders.”


6 “The courts have made it too easy for citizens to challenge the

constitutionality of legislative and governmental actions.”


7 “The courts have provided consistent and compelling interpretations of the

Constitution.”


8 “The Government is subject to appropriate checks and balances under the

Constitution.”


Detailed rules for length and submission of essay

The essay should be written in 12pt font and be 1½ spaced. Do not pick an unusally

small font in order to fit in more words. If you do, I will estimate how much you have

32

exceeded the page limit and stop reading at an appropriate point. Use a sans-serif

font that is normal for documents: eg, Calibri, Trebuchet MS, Arial, or similar.

Standard default margins should be used.

Within these limiations, it should be no more than 8 pages long, including footnotes

but excluding the title page. I shall not read beyond the 8th page. You must include

your student ID number (ie your 8 digit number, not your anonymous-marking

number) on the front page of the essay. You must also print off, complete and sign

the standard plagiarism declaration and attach it to your essay prior to submission.

The essay must be handed to the secretary of the Law School on or by 3pm on

Thursday 30 January. In addition, students must sign and date the registration book

provided. Students must submit their essays only during posted Law School Office

hours; submission after such office hours will be deemed late submission, and

treated according to the penalties set out below.

If you require an extension, you must contact the module lecturer on or preferably

before the submission date. There is a strong presumption against the granting of

extensions. For example, computer failure and the like will not normally be

accepted as justifications for the granting of an extension. An extension may be

granted on such terms as the lecturer thinks are reasonable in the circumstances.

Such terms may include the abatement, in whole or in part, of relevant penalties,

and the substitution of a new deadline. If you fail to submit an essay for

assessment, you will be returned as non-satisfactory for the module.

Late submissions (which have not been granted an extension) will, without

exception, be subject to the following scale of penalties:

From the mark out of 100 returned by the examiners:

10 marks will be deducted for the first day or part thereof by which the

deadline is exceeded,

A further 10 marks will be deducted in respect of the next six day period

or part thereof by which the deadline is exceeded, and

33

A further 10 marks will be deducted in respect of each subsequent week

or part thereof by which the deadline for submission is exceeded.

For the avoidance of doubt, submission after Law School Office hours shall be

deemed to be submission on the following day, and the penalties will apply

accordingly.

If you are required, by reason of your examination result, to repeat your

Constitutional law 1 module, the following regulations apply. If you either did not

submit your essay or did not obtain a pass mark in the original essay, then you shall

be required to submit a further essay for the supplemental examination. If you

obtained a pass mark in the original essay, the mark will carry forward to the

supplemental examination. Any further essay shall be submitted by 3pm on 15

August 2014 in the same manner as set out above. Late submission of an essay for

assessment as part of the supplemental examinations will be subject to the same

penalties as laid out above.

34

Constitutional Law I Reading List Complete

Documents

Transcript of Constitutional Law I Reading List Complete