Constitutional time limits

legally away

In passing,
Are there time limits for cases regarding primarily the right to life 40.3.2, and unenumerated rights such as right to earn a livelihood, privacy and sexuality. Or is it a case by case basis?

Also where these rights are breached under the European convention?

Thanks for replies.

Cody Pomeray

legally away wrote: »

In passing,
Are there time limits for cases regarding primarily the right to life 40.3.2, and unenumerated rights such as right to earn a livelihood, privacy and sexuality. Or is it a case by case basis?

Do you mean time limits in respect of an action or prosection?

In that case, yes, there are time limits on a case by case basis.

This is laid down in the rules of the Superior Courts, with the intention of protecting the constitutional right to fair procedures.
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/87666f02d0947eb780256d2b0046b3ef?OpenDocument
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/5a40c8637952165880256d2b0046b3d7?OpenDocument

If a delay is inordinate and inexcusable, and violates the constitutional right to fair procedures, this may be sufficient to prohibit a trial.
Other relevant factors may include the conduct of both parties in the course of proceedings, prejudice to the defendant (perhaps calling his good name and his business into disrepute) and the best interests of the community.

The above is a broad summary of what are called the "Primor" principles. Primor is a famous Supreme Court case where these principles were categorically consolidated.

Also where these rights are breached under the European convention?

The above applies to the European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003. There was a situation in Ireland in the last ten years where the courts seemed to look less benignly upon delays, but they have rowed back on this in recent times and the current situation can be described as saying that Convention jurisprudence has not changed Irish jurisprudence very much. See McBrearty and Others v the North Western Health Board [2010] and Desmond v M.G.N. Limited [2009]. These cases again brought the Primor (previously referred to) principles to the fore, and that remains the position to this day.

If you are specifically asking about European Convention/Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, this can be summed up in the following way.

The European Convention of Human Rights establishes a right to a hearing within a "reasonable" time, similar to our own constitutional provisions.
The European Court of Human Rights say that the reasonableness of the delay must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case, its complexity, the conduct of the parties and the personal costs of the delay to the applicant.

Manach

From looking at a ECHR textbook, raising the issue should be done after domestic avenues have been explored fully, and their might be a 6 month limit from that point.

legally away

Thanks for that, question is in relation to the taking of an action so I suppose the primor v Crowley rules are applicable, reading through it there.
Also if the right to life is absolute can there ever be acquiescence in delay?

Tom Young

The ECHR is interpreted after the Constitution per McD v L and Carmoody, always bear that on the forefront of your mind. Art 6 ECHR plays a role in the right to a fair trial.

Re. Delay, Stokes v Primor, while the locus classicus has been developed. Desmond v MGN and Stephens need to be considered.

Case by case basis. The test: Actual prejudice & Presumed Prejuduce & Temporal Prejudice all over the Balance of Justice.

I'm not sure that addresses the query the OP had though.