Bederev v Ireland

Last updated

Bederev v Ireland
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameBederev v Ireland
Decided22/06/2016
Citation(s)[2016] IESC 34; [2016] 3 IR 1, [2016] 2 ILRM 340
Case history
Appealed fromThe Court of Appeal
Appealed toThe Supreme Court of Ireland
Case opinions
very brief summary.
Court membership
Judges sittingDenham CJ, O'Donnell Donal J, McKechnie J, Clarke J, MacMenamin J, Dunne J, Charleton J
Case opinions
Decision byMacMenamin J
ConcurrenceDenham CJ, O Donnell J, McKechnie J, Clarke J, MacMenamin J, Dunne J, Charleton J,
DissentNone
Keywords
Constitution of Ireland, Separation of Powers

Bederev v Ireland, [2016] IESC 34; [2016] 3 IR 1, [2016] 2 ILRM 340 [1] 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." [2] [3] 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. [4] [5]

Contents

Background

Facts of the case

In April 2012, the appellant was brought before Blanchardstown District Court charged with possession of and intent to supply methylethcathinone. Prior to 2011, it was not illegal to possess or supply this particular drug in Ireland which was available to buy in most headshops". [3] In 2011, the government issued a declaration under s 2(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 which classified methylethcathinone as a controlled drug. Bederev issued legal proceedings to the High Court seeking an order that s 2(2) of the 1977 Act was unconstitutional, on the grounds that it conferred a legislative making power to the government which was contrary to the doctrine of the separation of powers. Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution states "the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State." [6]

The High Court

The High Court dismissed Bederev's application and concluded that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 contained sufficient principles and guidelines to assist and constrain the government in the making of any order pursuant to s 2 (2) and that it did not violate the legislative authority of the Oireachtas under Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution. Bederev appealed the judgement of the High Court to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal (COA) overturned the ruling of the High Court and granted Bederev's appeal by stating that s 2 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 constituted a clear violation of Article 15.2.1. The Court held while s 2 (2) did not prevent the government from making an order outside the existing parameters of controlled drugs, it did constrain the government from engaging in policy making as to what drugs could be classified as "dangerous, harmful" or what constitutes a "misuse" as this was an exclusive right of the Oireachtas.

Holding of the Supreme Court

The seven judge panel of the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decision of the COA and restored the order of the High Court. Charlton J who delivered the judgement held that:

"In the Act of 1977, it is clear that the entire enactment, as to the preamble, the individual sections and the schedule setting out the drugs then controlled, should be read as a whole in order to determine the principles upon which any new drug might be added by the government to the list passed as part of the legislation in 1977. The entire text should also be searched to find the boundaries to the power to add new substances. Central to the guidance given to Government by the Act of 1977 is the schedule of drugs appended to the legislation. Both the drugs individually set out in particular sections within the legislation and the schedule, which is part thereof, describe and delimit the kind of drugs needing control. Only such drugs, those dangerous to human health and subject to abuse actually or potentially, may be added. Any such addition is subject to scrutiny by the Oireachtas through the mechanism in the Act enabling the legislature to annul any such delegated legislative authority." [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Supreme Court of Ireland Highest judicial authority in Ireland

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.

Illicit drug use in Ireland

Illicit drug use in Ireland & Northern Ireland has been growing since the mid-1970s. The use by young people of psychedelic drugs, including LSD and cannabis, was recognized at that time. Opiate abuse was uncommon until the 1980s, following events in the opium production centres of Afghanistan and Iran. Government task forces and private programmes were formed to tackle increased opiate abuse. Dublin and Ballymena have been centres of increased heroin use and preventative efforts. Studies confirmed significant opiate use in the 1990s, when action to reduce harm caused by drug use became favoured. Programmes focussed on controlling the spread of HIV, seen as a greater social threat than drug abuse itself.

The Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2012 amended the Constitution of Ireland by inserting clauses relating to children's rights and the right and duty of the state to take child protection measures. It was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) on 10 October 2012, and approved at a referendum on 10 November 2012, by 58% of voters on a turnout of 33.5%. Its enactment was delayed by a High Court case challenging the conduct of the referendum. The High Court's rejection of the challenge was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2015. It was signed into law by the President on 28 April 2015.

This article is about the firearms policy in the Republic of Ireland. Irish law allows firearm possession on may-issue basis. With approximately seven civilian firearms per 100 people, Ireland is the 107th most armed country in the world.

The Court of Appeal is a court in Ireland that sits between the High Court and Supreme Court. Its jurisdiction derives from Article 34.4. It was established in 2014, taking over the existing appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in 2014 and replacing the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. Appeals to the Supreme Court are at that Court's discretion.

Cannabis in Ireland is illegal for recreational purposes. Use for medical purposes requires case-by-case approval by the Minister for Health. A bill to legalise medical uses of cannabis passed second reading in Dáil Éireann in December 2016.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

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.

<i>Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

<i>The Health (amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004</i> Irish Supreme Court case

The Health (amendment) Bill 2004,[2005] IESC 7 was an Irish Supreme Court case where a bill containing amendments to The Health Act of 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 unconstitutional. 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

<i>OConnell & anor v The Turf Club</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.

<i>Bank of Ireland v ODonnell & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors[2015] IESC 90 is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.

<i>Goold v Collins and Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Goold v Collins and Ors [2004] IESC 38, [2004] 7 JIC 1201 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a statutory provision's constitutionality may be reviewed only at the behest of a litigant who is contesting some current application of that provision.

<i>Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.V.H. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<i>Collins v Minister for Finance</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Collins v Minister for Finance[2016] IESC 73; [2017] 1 ILRM 65; [2017] 3 IR 99, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which it was 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' 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 and we will be challenging that in the Dáil itself.” 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."

<i>Wansboro v. DPP and anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775, is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning costs in public interest challenges. The Court allowed an appeal against the order for costs made in the High Court and also granted costs against the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.

<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy, [2010] IESC 17; [2010] 3 IR 77, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that inpatient treatment with a restriction order attached to it in a European Arrest Warrant came within the meaning of "detention order" in s.10(d) of the European Warrant Act 2003. This gave the definition of "detention order" a wide meaning. The case involved an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom.

<i>McInerney Homes Ltd v Cos Acts 1990</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McInerney Homes Ltd v Cos Acts 1990 [2011] IESC 31 is one of the few Irish Supreme Court cases on the topic of examinership under the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990. The Court held that the onus of proof under the legislation lay with the Examiner to show that a proposed scheme of debt restructuring was not unfair to any interested party.

References

  1. "Bederev -v- Ireland, The Attorney General & ors [2016] IESC 34 (22 June 2016)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 6 November 2019.
  2. Minihan, Mary; Hilliard, Mark; Gallagher, Conor. "Drugs ruling will impact on pending cases, says expert". The Irish Times. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
  3. 1 2 "Bederev v Ireland: Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 is constitutional—no precedents were harmed". SCOIRLBLOG. 23 June 2016. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
  4. Cahill, Maria; O' Conaill, Sean (2017). "Judicial Restraint Can Also Undermine Constitutional Principles: An Irish Caution". University of Queensland Law Journal. 36 (2): 266–267 via HeinOnline.
  5. Minihan, Mary. "Give Me a Crash Course In . . . the temporary legalisation of ecstasy". The Irish Times. Retrieved 27 April 2020.
  6. Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 17 December 2019.
  7. "Bederev -v- Ireland, The Attorney General & ors [2016] IESC 34 (22 June 2016)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 20 December 2019.