Call McGarr Solicitors on: 01 6351580

Godzilla

Godzilla is widely recognised as expressing Japanese fears of attack from the United States of America.

His activities have varied from film to film but trampling Tokyo is an enduring theme.

a) Tokyo is the capital city of Japan. It embodies Japanese political power.

b) Godzilla films allude to the destruction of this power.

c) Therefore, Godzilla films are political;

d) Therefore advertisements for Godzilla films, on commercial radio, should be banned by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland.

See our previous posting relating to the need to keep religion in check.

Insurance Fraud

The Sunday Tribune newspaper in Dublin has published an article/s alleging some insurance companies (remaining nameless here!) have assembled information and constructed files on personal injury claimants (aka “persons injured in accidentsâ€?) having wrongfully and illegally obtained some of the information from Government and police files.

Allegedly, police officers (Garda Siochana) or former police officers (and some civil servants) are the sources of the information. The information, it appears, is accessed in real time on the police and Government computers and files.

If this is true (legal proceedings in defamation have issued against the Sunday Tribune in one case, apparently), a number of wrongs have been committed.

The Injured Parties

These people have been injured several times, in more than one sense.

Having been injured physically they claim compensation from the persons they believe were responsible for the injury. Typically, these claims arise following road traffic accidents, for which, in Ireland, it is compulsory to have third party insurance. Uniquely, for Ireland, a favourable judgment for the Plaintiff is directly enforceable against the insurance company.

What is alleged is that the companies, or one or more of their agents, have corruptly gained access to private information, relating to the Plaintiffs, held on Government and police files. This is the second injury to the Plaintiffs.

The insured person, the defendant, will be obliged to report the accident to the insurance company with whom he/she is insured. That company will then handle the claim, using a claims department and sometimes hiring self-employed claims investigators. These investigators are sometimes represented as “private investigatorsâ€?, but generally they interview the defendant and photograph the scene of the accident. Only some of them go further and investigate the plaintiff, secretly filming him/her to demonstrate the falsity of claimed incapacity, for instance.

This is unpleasant, but lawful.

What is alleged is that the companies, or one or more of their agents, have corruptly gained access to private information, relating to the plaintiff, held on Government and police files.

If true this would, it appears, constitute a breach of the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy.

THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL, COMMUNITY AND FAMILY AFFAIRS

The Department of Social Community and Family Affairs keeps a file on most people in the State. This may relate to the payment of various benefits, disability; unemployment etc. The file will also have a record of the contributions paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff. This is the main reason it can confidently be said that there is such a file on most people. The files of the Department are subject to the Official Secrets Act 1963. All information on a Departmental file or computer is “official informationâ€?,

Section 4 of the Act of 1963 reads;

4. —(1) A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it.

A breach of this restriction, for payment, is a corrupt act under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001

To make a payment for official information is a corrupt act and an offence under the Act of 2001.

The Department itself is subject to the Data Protection Act 1988 as amended by the Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003.

Section 2 of the Act of 1988 (as amended by the Act of 2003) requires [the Department] to only obtain or process data fairly; ensure it is accurate and up to date; keep it only for specified purposes; not disclose it or use it save for the specified purpose; ensure it is kept securely.

If the allegations are true, it would appear that these provisions have been breached by the Department.

As stated above, also on these facts the Department, vicariously is complicit in a breach of the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy.

On these facts the Department, vicariously is complicit in the tort of abuse of public office.

THE GARDA SIOCHANA

The police (Garda Siochana) keep records of criminal convictions. There is good reason to think other information is also kept. The Data Protection Commissioner has revealed that the police made application to mobile phone companies on 10,000 occasions in 2006 for information on the location, and other data, of owners or users of particular mobile phones. (“Sunday Times”; 25/2/2007). In short, the mobile phone information database is, effectively, part of the police database.

The Garda Siochana and its members are also subject to the Official Secrets Act 1963 and Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001.

Any use of information as alleged by the Sunday Tribune would constitute an unlawful means conspiracy. Such a conspiracy need not have as its object an unlawful object; simply the use of unlawful means to achieve that object. In the particular cases under discussion there would also appear to have been a conspiracy pure and simple; a crime in itself.

On these facts the Garda Siochana, is, vicariously, complicit in a breach of the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy.

On these facts the Garda Siochana, is, vicariously, complicit in the tort of abuse of public office.

THE INSURANCE COMPANIES

Insurance companies are, undoubtedly “data controllersâ€? in respect of the data they keep on claimants. Each insurance company is, generally, vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its servants or agents.

There is an obligation under Section 19 of the Data Protection Act 1988, as amended, for a data controller to register with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. Registration involves specifying the data that will be held or processed (“holdingâ€? is “processingâ€?) A failure to register renders the holding of data illegal. Holding data for which there is no registration is illegal. An employee or agent of a data controller is subject to the same restrictions as the data controller.

On the alleged facts the insurance companies are complicit in a breach of the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy.

Any use by the insurance companies of information, as alleged by the Sunday Tribune, would constitute an unlawful means conspiracy. Such a conspiracy need not have as its object an unlawful object; simply the use of unlawful means to achieve that object.

In the particular cases under discussion there would also appear to have been a conspiracy pure and simple; a crime in itself

Drinking Water; a brief Modern History

The European Commission proposed legislation in 1975 to secure clean drinking water for the people of Europe (well, the member States of the EU, anyway).

This proposal resulted in the passing of Directive 80/778 EEC. The member States were given five years to bring their systems into compliance.

None saw any reason to seek a derogation or extension of time. Events showed that they were not very pressed to comply with the Directive, although they were legally obliged to comply; they simply transposed the Directive incorrectly or partially or did not monitor their drinking water sufficiently frequently to permit valid judgements on compliance or non compliance to be made. Alternatively the people were not informed of the results of testing.

Even so, pressure was applied to reduce the burden of Directive 80/778 EEC and the Commission replaced it with Directive 98/83 EC. Now the consumer’s entitlement is to the delivery of clean wholesome water from the tap: previously it was in respect of the water entering the system, not leaving it.

Directive 75/440/EEC prescribes requirements for the quality of surface waters from which drinking water is to be abstracted. As far back as 1991 the European Court of Justice made it clear in Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-4983 that the member States were obliged to draw up a plan to improve such waters and to follow the plan in stages. Window dressing will be insufficient; the plan must be real and must be followed.

In Commission v UK Case –340/96 [1999] ECR I-2023 the European Court of Justice judged that the UK had not properly transposed Directive 98/83 EC because the domestic authorities had too much discretion in enforcement.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that the obligations to deliver clean wholesome water are strict.

Digital Rights Ireland: Motion in Default of Defence

THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P

Between


DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff


And

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

TAKE NOTICE that on the 30TH day of APRIL 2007, at the hour of 11.00 a.m. in the forenoon or at the first available opportunity thereafter Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff herein will apply to this Honourable Court sitting in the Chancery Motions list at the Four Courts Inns Quay in the City of Dublin for the following:

1. An Order granting judgment to the Plaintiff against the Defendants and each of them herein in terms of the Indorsement of Claim set out in the Statement of Claim herein on the grounds that the Defendants herein and each of them have failed to enter a Defence within the time specified by the Rules of this Honourable Court;

2. Such further and other Orders and relief as to this Honourable Court seems meet and just;

3. An order dealing with the costs of and incidental to this application.

WHICH APPLICATION will be grounded upon the proceedings already had herein, this Notice of Motion and affidavit of service thereof, the certificate of no Defence, the Affidavit of Edward McGarr and the exhibits herein referred to, the nature of the case and the reasons to be offered.

DATED THIS 11th DAY OF APRIL 2007

McGARR
_________________________
McGARR
Solicitors
12 City Gate
Lower Bridge St.
Dublin 8

TO: The Registrar
Central Office
Four Courts
Dublin 7
And
The Chief State Solicitor
Little Ship St.
Dublin 8

THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P

Between


DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff


And

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

 

AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD McGARR

I , Edward McGarr Solicitor, of 12 City Gate Lower Bridge St. Dublin 8 being aged 18 years and upwards MAKE OATH and say as follows:

1. I say that I am the Solicitor for the Plaintiff in the above entitled proceedings and I make this Affidavit from facts within my own knowledge save where otherwise appears and where so appearing I believe the same to be true and accurate.

2. I beg to refer to the proceedings already had herein when produced.

3. I say the plaintiff is a non-governmental organisation whose objects include the defence of human rights in a digital age. As appears from the pleadings the Defendants have breached the human and constitutional rights of, essentially the users of mobile phones in Ireland.

4. I say that by letter dated the 1st November 2006 I wrote to the Defendants’ solicitor giving him notice that in default of Defence a motion for Judgment in default would issue. In this regard I beg to refer to a true copy of the said letter upon which and marked with the letter “A��? I have signed my name prior to the swearing hereof.

5. In the events that happened the Defendants did not serve a Defence and I say that a Notice of Motion for judgement in default of Defence issued returnable for 19th February 2007. On that day, at the request of the Defendants, this honourable court made an Order on consent extending the time within which the Defendants might serve a Defence.

6. I beg to refer to a copy of the said Order when produced.

7. I say that by letter dated the 20th March 2007 I wrote to the Defendants’ solicitor giving him notice that in default of Defence a motion for Judgment in default would issue. In this regard I beg to refer to a true copy of the said letter upon which and marked with the letter “C��? I have signed my name prior to the swearing hereof.

8. I beg to refer to the Affidavit of service of this Notice of Motion and this Affidavit when produced.

9. I say that as of the date of swearing this Affidavit the Defendants have not entered a Defence.

10. I therefore pray this Honourable Court for the Relief sought in the Statement of Claim and Notice of Motion herein.

EDWARD McGARR

Sworn by the said Edward McGarr
This 11th day of April
2007 at Arran Quay
before me a Commissioner for
Oaths/Practising Solicitor and I know the
Deponent

ANTHONY NAGLE
______________________________
Commissioner for Oaths/Practising Solicitor

This Affidavit is filed this 11th day of April 2007 by McGarr Solicitors of 12 City Gate Lower Bridge St. Dublin 8 on behalf of the Plaintiff

Constituencies Constitutional Challenge: Letter to Chief State Solicitor

THE HIGH COURT
RECORD NO. 2819P/2007

Between

CATHERINE MURPHY and
FINIAN McGRATH

Plaintiffs

And

 

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

In the light of the Defendants’ public statements since service of the Proceedings, on our clients’ instructions we have sent a letter (available here in pdf format) to the Defendants’ Solicitor today.

“Projects” and the Environment

Under Directive 85/337EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, the member States of the EU became obliged to ensure that certain development projects were subject to Environmental Impact Assessment. The assessment is conducted by the project-licensing authority.

Directives are addressed to member States and are not directed to individuals. Each member State is obliged to “transposeâ€? the Directive into national law. The national law then applies to individuals.

Ireland chose to transpose Directive 85/337EEC and Directive 97/11/EC by means of legislation on Planning. This was not done successfully; See HERE.
Member States failing to transpose or transpose fully or correctly a Directive are open to challenge in the European Court of Justice, as happened to Ireland.

Planning authorities are precluded from investigating environmental issues (although they may refuse a planning permission on an environmental ground). The assessment of environmental issues is the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPAâ€?) (Section 99F (1) Environmental Protection Act 1992).

The EPA is precluded from investigating planning issues.

This division of responsibility has potential to show up a further failure by the State to correctly transpose Directive 85/337EEC and Directive 97/11/EC into Irish national law.

The issues are:

a) Under Irish planning law what a planning permission authorises is “developmentâ€?. This is defined in Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

b) A planning permission granted in respect of a new rubber manufacturing factory would, for instance, carry authorisation of use of the factory for the stated purpose. Yet use is, essentially, an issue for the EPA.

c) Clearly, a planning permission to build a factory, where the use of the factory requires a licence from the EPA is not a useful permission in the absence of the EPA licence. Only on the issue of the EPA licence AND the planning permission is the “projectâ€? authorised.

d) Under Directive 85/337EEC and Directive 97/11/EC what is in question is the “projectâ€?. “Projectâ€? is much more descriptive of what is involved in the situation referred to at c) than is a planning permission for “developmentâ€?.

e) In short, where there is a need to apply for, and receive, a number of regulatory consents, the “projectâ€? is not authorised until each and every one of the consents is obtained.

f) Planning permission is not, however, a “consentâ€?; it indicates an absence of opposition (by the planning authority) (See Section 34 (13) Planning and Development Act 2000). This is not how the issue of a planning permission is generally perceived, however. That perception validates action by a developer on receipt of a planning permission.

Under EU law, action and initiative by a developer must await the completion of assessment of the “projectâ€?. Member States are bound to retrain action, by an applicant, taken before the completion of an assessment and approval of the “projectâ€?. “Approval” can only mean the issue of the last of the requisite regulatory licences or consents.

In any particular case, the EPA licence might be the last of such licences, or the planning permission might be, or a Ministerial consent might be. Thus, only in the light of the knowledge of the requirements of the particular project is it possible to make the judgement as to whether action and development may proceed.

There are two possible outcomes for a developer in such a situation; either the developer may not proceed with development in the absence of ALL the regulatory consents (and be open to restraint by injunction restraining action in the absence of one or more licences), or the fact that the legislation ostensibly intended to transpose Directive 85/337EEC and Directive 97/11/EC has not done so correctly may result in the permissions granted being quashed on application to court by an objector.

THE VIEWS AND COMMENTS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF, AND PERSONAL TO, THE WRITER, AND ARE INTENDED FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON BY ANY PARTY. NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY IS GIVEN AS TO THE ACCURACY OR CORRECTNESS OF SAME, NOR ARE THEY REPRESENTED AS CONTAINING (OR AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR) LEGAL ADVICE OR ASSISTANCE. NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (WHETHER IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT OR OTHERWISE AT ALL) IS ACCEPTED TO ANY PERSON ARISING OUT OF ANY RELIANCE ON THESE VIEWS.

Politics with a small p

The Broadcasing Complaints Commission polices the commercial radio sector.

Under the terms of Section 10 (3) of the Radio and Television Act 1988, it is obliged to ensure that advertisements tending towards any religious or political end are not broadcast.

It has decided in the past that an advertisement in opposition to gender discrimination (internationally, be it noted) was political; see HERE.

Now it has decided the following advertisement, being part of a campaign by the European Union office in Ireland, is political.

‘Did you know that the European Union has legislation to protect the environment. Governments must guarantee their citizens access to clean water and ensure that they breathe clean air. There are also EU laws in place to protect endangered wildlife. To find out more log onto euireland.ie or call into any of the Europe Direct Information Centres. Europe Direct Information; its all about EU.’

Constituencies Constitutional Challenge: Statement of Claim

THE HIGH COURT
RECORD NO. 2819P/2007

Between

CATHERINE MURPHY and
FINIAN McGRATH

Plaintiffs

And

 

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Delivered this 5th day of April 2007 by McGarr Solicitors of 12 City Gate, Lower Bridge St. Dublin 8

1. The 1st Named Plaintiff is an independent Member of Dail Eireann in the constituency of Kildare North and will be a candidate for Dáil Éireann for election to the 30th Dáil within the Constituency of Kildare North which said constituency is a three seat constituency and is currently defined and determined by the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2005.

2. The 1st Named Plaintiff is also a citizen of Ireland and is anxious both in that capacity and in her capacity as a member of Dail Eireann to ensure that there is fair and equal representation of voters and equality as between constituencies in the manner required by the provisions of Article 5, Article 16 and Article 40.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann.

3. The 2nd Named Plaintiff is an independent Member of Dail Eireann in the constituency of Dublin North Central and will be a candidate for Dáil Éireann for election to the 30th Dáil within the Constituency of Dublin North Central which said constituency is a three seat constituency and is currently defined and determined by the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2005.

4. The 2nd Named Plaintiff is also a citizen of Ireland and is anxious both in that capacity and in his capacity as a member of Dail Eireann to ensure that there is fair and equal representation of voters and equality as between constituencies in the manner required by the provisions of Article 5, Article 16 and Article 40.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann.

5. The first named Defendant is the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government and is a corporate sole with his principal office at the Custom House Dublin 1 The said Minister is the Minister with responsibility for the revision of the constituencies within the State as is required by Article 16.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

6. The second named Defendant is the juristic person answerable at law for the actions of the first named Defendant, his servants or agents.

7. The third named Defendant is the law officer of the State designated by the Constitution of Ireland and is sued in his representative capacity.

8. Article 16.1.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann provides that all citizens who have reached the age of eighteen and are not disqualified by law and comply with the provisions of thelaw relating to theelection of members of Dail Eireann shall have the right to vote at an election of members of Dáil Éireann.

9. Article 16.2.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann provides that Dáil Éireann shall be composed of members who represent constituencies determined by law with a ratio of members to population of not less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population and not more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.

10. Article 16.2.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann provides that the ratio between the number of members to be elected to Dáil Éireann at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency as ascertained at the last preceding Census, shall, so far as is practicable, be the same throughout the State.

11. Article 16.2.4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann provides that the Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every 12 years with due regard to changes in distribution of population.

12. In or about the month of July 2003 the Central Statistics Office published the results of the 2002 Census, regarding the population of the State.

13. On the 9th day of July 2005 the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2005 was enacted into law.

14. On or about the 15th day of July 2006 the Central Statistics Office published the Census 2006 Preliminary Report, which detailed the major population changes in the State from 2002 to 2006 and which established that in the event that the constituencies specified in the Schedule to the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2005 were not redrawn prior to a general election, significant and material inequality in the ratio between the number of members to be elected for each constituency and the population of each constituency would result.

15. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Census 2006 Preliminary Report established that five constituencies were over 7.9% above the national average of 25,512 persons per member of Dail Eireann, and five constituencies were over 7.9% below the national average, where 7.89% represents the conventionally accepted norm of deviation,

16. It was in the premises incumbent on the defendants under the provisions of Bunreacht na hEireann to procure the revision of the constituencies with due regard to the changes in the distribution of the population so as to ensure that the ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census would, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State.

17. The final census figures were published by the Central Statistics Office on or about the 29th day of March 2007 which were entirely consistent with the results of the Census 2006 preliminary report as hereinbefore pleaded. Without prejudice to the case hereinbefore pleaded it was therefore incumbent on the defendants to procure a revision of the constituencies under Article 16.2.4 prior to a general election to ensure compliance with Article 16.2.3 which constitutional obligation the defendants have failed neglected and refused to comply with.

18. As obligated under the Constitution it was incumbent upon the defendants to take all practical steps to ensure equality of representation inconformity with Article 16.2.2 with which obligation the defendants have failed and continue to fail to comply.

19. In particular the defendants are thereby in breach of their obligations under Articles 5, 16.1.2, 16.2.2, 16.2.3, 16.2.4, 16,1.4, 40.1 and 40.3 thereof.

20. Furthermore Sections 3 and 4 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2005 together with the Schedule thereto are invalid having regard to the provisions of Bunreacht na hEireann and in particular Articles 16.2.2, 16.2.3, 16.2.4, and Article 16.1.4 thereof.

PARTICULARS

a. The 2006 Census figures reveal that the ratio of members to be elected, to population is one member per 30,967 persons in the constituency of Dublin West when the minimum allowed by Article 16.2.2 is one member per 30,000 of the population in respect of each constituency.

b. The ratio of members to population in the constituencies throughout the country is not as far as practicable the same throughout the country.

c. Sections 3 and 4 of the 2005 Act fails to have due regard to changes in distribution of the population as it is required to do by virtue of Article 16.2.4.

21. It is expressly pleaded that the deviations in the ratio of Dail deputies to the number of the population adversely affects the equality of representation of the citizens of Ireland in all of the constituencies defined by the 2005 Act and the said inequality impacts on the method and manner whereby all such constituencies (including the Plaintiffs’ constituencies of Kildare North and Dublin North Central) have been drawn and devised by law. Furthermore sections 3 and 4 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2005 together with the Schedule thereto are invalid having regard to the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann and in particular Articles 5, 40.1 and 40.3 thereof.

PARTICULARS

a. Pursuant to the said provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann all citizens have equal political rights with one vote of equal value per person.

b. There is an inequality of voting power and representation.

c. Sections 3 and 4 of the 2005 Act fail to hold the citizens of the State equal before the law in the matter of voting entitlements and political representation.

AND THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM:

A. A Declaration that the Defendants have failed in their constitutional obligation to ensure that the ratio between the numbers to be elected to Dail Eireann for each constituency and the population of each constituency as ascertained at the last census, is, so far as is practicable, the same throughout the country.

B. A Declaration that the Defendant have failed in their constitutional obligation to ensure that the constituencies were revised to have due regard to changes in distribution of population.

C. If necessary, such order by way of injunction or Mandamus directing the Defendants to revise the constituencies in light of the result of the 2006 census as to this Honourable Court shall seem meet.

D. A Declaration that Section 3 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2005 together with the Schedule thereto is invalid having regard to the provisions of Articles 16.2.2, 16.2.3, 16.2.4, and Article 16.1.4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

E. A Declaration that Section 3 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2005 together with the Schedule thereto, is invalid having regard to the provisions of Articles 16.1.2, 16.2.2, 16.2.3, 16.2.4, and Article 16.1.4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

F. A Declaration that Section 4 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2005 together with the Schedule thereto is invalid having regard to the provisions of Articles 16.1.2, 16.2.2, 16.2.3, 16.2.4, and Article 16.1.4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

G. A Declaration that Sections 3 and 4 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2005 together with the Schedule thereto are invalid having regard to the provisions of Articles 5, 40.1 and 40.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

H. A Declaration that the Defendants have failed to protect and vindicate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights as members of the electorate.

I. Such further Orders or Declaratory or other relief respecting the compliance of the Defendants with their obligations under Bunreacht na hEireann as this Honourable Court deems meet and just.

J. Such Interlocutory Order or Orders as this Honourable Court deems meet and just.

K. Further and other relief.

L. Costs.

Mark J Dunne
Frank Callanan SC
Gerard Hogan SC

Constituencies Constitutional Challenge

We act for the Plaintiffs in the High Court action relating to the failure of the Government to revise the constituencies, as is required under the Constitution. See the Statement of Claim here.

Personal Injury – Vibration

For Employers’ duties see HERE

Vibration is a common and infrequently recognised cause of injury. It is an avoidable result of using many industrial tools such as chain saws, grinding, sanding, hammering or polishing tools.

Apart from general effects such as nausea, giddiness or an inability to focus, all caused by vibration to the entire body, it can damage nerves and blood vessels and deaden a limb such as fingers or hands in “whitefinger”. As the name suggests the first symptom is often a finger turning white and remaining in that condition, only gradually returning to normal. If it becomes established it is irreversible. In extreme cases gangrene will set in and require amputation of the affected limb.

Vibration can disrupt tendons and cause “carpal tunnel syndrome”. This results from nerve entrapment in the carpal tunnel in the hand, formed by the carpal bones. The tunnel encloses the median nerve and nine flexor tendons. If through injury, a swelling or reduction takes place in the tunnel, the median nerve will be adversely affected and cause a number of symptoms in the hand including numbness, tingling, burning, clumsiness and pain.

Vibration is best dealt with at the design stage of the relevant machine. Spring mounted handles on chain saws will virtually eliminate vibration dangerous to the majority of workers. Direct contact with the vibrating metal of the tool is the most obvious circumstance to avoid. Even a rubber or plastic grip will significantly protect the worker. If the machinery is badly designed, it should be replaced. At the very least, substantial rest breaks will delay the onset of the condition.

It may be easy to overlook the effects of travelling on a vehicle such as a tractor in the context of vibration. However, the jerking of the whole body and other movements transmitted to the body are a form of vibration, albeit at low frequencies.

In a study in 1960 of 371 tractor drivers, long periods of tractor driving over rough terrain was shown to cause stomach complaints and spinal disorders. There was a direct relationship between the severity of the complaints and the length of service of the drivers. Kidney damage was also indicated by the presence of blood in urine.

1 … 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 … 95