A Dublin woman has told the High Court she intends to bring a challenge to the constitutionality of provisions of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.
Jane Murphy, with an address in Milltown, appeared before the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns today, stating she believes the Act is “wrong” and intends to challenge its constitutionality.
Mr Justice Kearns, who in July 2013 refused Ms Murphy an injunction restraining the then Bill coming into effect on grounds the courts could not at that stage interfere as the matter was before the Oireachtas, said the subsequent enactment into law of the measure means she is now free to seek to pursue a constitutional challenge.
The issue of the constitutionality of the legislation had not been referred by the President to the Supreme Court with the effect it was open to citizens to test the constitutionality of its provisions in the courts in "appropriate circumstances", the judge said.
He told Ms Murphy there were certain procedures to be followed in relation to bringing a constitutional challenge and she may also have to show she has the necessary personal interest to bring that, other than the interest of a concerned citizen.
“I object to it, I think it’s wrong,” Ms Murphy responded.
In a letter handed into court, Ms Murphy said the recent publication of guidelines in relation to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act meant the legislative framework was now complete and she was therefore returning to the court to seek a legal challenge to the legislation.
She was bringing the challenge “on the basis that provisions which stand rejected by the Irish people in a referendum should not have been included in the legislation, nor voted on by the Oireachtas”.
She also contended “the will of the people in relation to the 2002 referendum cannot be usurped by the legislative process”.
In July 2013, Ms Murphy was refused an injunction aimed at preventing provisions of the then Bill being voted into law.
When she made that application ex parte (one side only represented), former MEP Kathy Sinnott and Mark McCrystal, who in 2012 successfully challenged the Government’s spend of public monies on its information campaign in the Children’s Referendum, also attended in court.
At that hearing, Ms Murphy said she wanted the injunction in intended proceedings against Taoiseach Enda Kenny, the Minister for Health and the Government aimed at securing declarations “that provisions which stand rejected by the Irish people in a referendum cannot be included in proposed legislation, nor can they be voted on by the Oireachtas”.
She also sought a pre-emptive order the costs of the application and any subsequent judicial review be granted to her on the basis the case was brought “in the national interest and not for any personal benefit”.
The intention was to prevent the Government including two provisions in the Bill and to prevent the vote on that Bill, she said.
Her notice said the provision “that protection of the unborn should be limited to the later stage of implantation was rejected in referendum in 2002”.
Another provision "to repeal Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 was also put to the people of Ireland and rejected in the same 2002 referendum," it was stated.
It was unconstitutional and “an affront to the sovereignty of the Irish people” to have the provisions included in proposed legislation and voted on, the notice stated.
Having heard Ms Murphy on that occasion, Mr Justice Kearns said the matter was before the legislature.
Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the court could not deal with it at this stage, he said.
