An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
In constitutional law, the presumption of constitutionality is the legal principle that the judiciary should presume statutes enacted by the legislature to be constitutional, unless the law is clearly unconstitutional or a fundamental right is implicated.
The Supreme Court of Ireland is the highest judicial authority in Ireland. It is a court of final appeal and exercises, in conjunction with the Court of Appeal and the High Court, judicial review over Acts of the Oireachtas. The Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the Constitution of Ireland by governmental bodies and private citizens. It sits in the Four Courts in Dublin.
Legality, in respect of an act, agreement, or contract is the state of being consistent with the law or of being lawful or unlawful in a given jurisdiction, and the construct of power.
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.
In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.
Crotty v An Taoiseach was a landmark 1987 decision of the Irish Supreme Court which found that Ireland could not ratify the Single European Act unless the Irish Constitution was first changed to permit its ratification. The case, taken by Raymond Crotty formally against the Taoiseach, directly led to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland and established that significant changes to European Union treaties required an amendment to the Irish constitution before they could be ratified by Ireland. As a consequence, Ireland, uniquely in the EU, requires a plebiscite for every new, or substantive change to a, European Union Treaty.
Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down as unconstitutional a law which set the age of consent at 19 for homosexual sex but only 16 for heterosexual sex.
The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.
In law, South African constitutional litigation is the area dealing with the rules and principles concerning constitutional matters in the country of South Africa. It includes the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the High Court of South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, and certain other specialist courts. It also includes the consideration of rules peculiar to these courts that are relevant to constitutional litigation, such as the admission of an amicus curiae, the duty to raise a constitutional matter as early as possible in proceedings, and the duty to join the relevant organ of state in a case involving a constitutional issue.
Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.
The Health (Amendment) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7 was an Irish Supreme Court case where a bill containing amendments to the Health Act 1970 was brought before the supreme court after issues arose as to whether the provisions of the Bill were constitutional. The court found that the bill was repugnant to the constitution. The court ruled that patients were entitled to recover unlawful charges that they had paid because a person's rights to recover property are protected by the constitution
De Róiste v Minister for Defence, [2001] 1 IR190, [2001] IESC 4; [2001] 2 ILRM 241, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the extended delay in bringing forward an action was grounds for dismissal of charges.
Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others [2013] 2 ILRM 276; [2013] IESC 21; [2013] 3 IR 718 is an Irish Supreme Court case, where an appeal was granted and the court made a declaration that the provisions of Part III of the Industrial Relations Act are invalid considering the provisions of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. This court questioned the method by which wages and other benefits were set on a collective basis across numerous sectors.
Collins v Minister for Finance[2016] IESC 73; [2017] 1 ILRM 65; [2017] 3 IR 99, is case in which the Irish Supreme Court held that the Minister for Finance did not breach his power in issuing promissory notes under the Credit Institutions Act 2008, which was found to be constitutional. Collins's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which concluded that, "a Minister for Finance can spend any amount of money they deem necessary in an emergency without going back to the Dáil". The case thus legalised emergency measure to deal with Ireland's financial crisis. This was a case in which "the matters described" were of "national importance."
Wansboro v DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.
Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison [2014] IESC 54 was a case in which the Irish supreme court ruled that, ordinarily, a Court order detaining a convicted individual that is not prima facie invalid should only be challenged through an appeal of the conviction or an application for judicial review rather than through an application for release under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus.
Bederev v Ireland, [2016] IESC 34; [2016] 3 IR 1, [2016] 2 ILRM 340 is an Irish Supreme Court case which overturned the Court of Appeal's decision that declared s 2 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 unconstitutional on the grounds that it infringed on the exclusive authority of the Oireachtas to make legislation. The Court held that s 2(2) of the 1977 Act contains sufficient principles to allow the government to expand the list of controlled drugs, and is "not an abrogation of the democratic responsibility of the Oireachtas." This case is significant as it resolved the issues arising from the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal which had attracted international media attention by decriminalising certain Class A drugs, ecstasy for example, for a period of 24 hours until the Oireachtas pushed through emergency legislation.
McNulty v DPP[2009] IESC 12; [2009] 3 IR 572 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the appellant had been previously charged with possession of controlled drugs with an intent to supply contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977; the case was heard in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court before Judge Michael White, where the jury were unable to reach a verdict and accordingly disagreed. The appellant claimed that the respondent had unfairly taken advantage of the jury's disagreement after what he claims was an incorrect decision by White J in allowing the admittance of additional evidence to make up for the "defects in proof at the first trial."
Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11; [2012] 13 ILRM 153; [2012] 2 IR 266 is an Irish Supreme Court case which considered whether section 29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 was unconstitutional. This statutory provision allowed a member of An Garda Siochana, who possessed a rank not below that of superintendent, to issue a search warrant to another Garda who possessed a rank not below that of sergeant. The Supreme Court held that any search warrant issued by a person who is associated with the investigation was invalid. In this case, such a person was a deemed to be a member of the Gardaí. Thus, section 29(1) was declared unconstitutional and any evidence taken from the search warrant was inadmissible.
