Now showing 1 - 10 of 77
- PublicationThe Slow March to Work for Asylum Seekers in Ireland(2020-06-11)Two key issues of focus: 1. Denying the right to work for asylum seekers 1996-2018. 2. The Potential and Limits of Law.
- PublicationC.A. and T.A.: The Direct Provision Case(Roundhall, 2014-12)Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh delivered his decision in the case of C.A. and T.A v The Minister for Justice and others on November 14, 2014; subsequent to the publication of Issue 3 of this journal (2014) 17 (3) I.J.F.L. 67), in which reference to this case was made. This summary is based on Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh's unapproved decision, and readers are advised to check the Courts Service website for the approved decision.
- PublicationLS v Department for Social Development (IS)  NICOM 327(Servicing the Legal System (SLS), 2012-11)The appellant had sold her house and received a large sum of money in August 2007. The appellant had claimed income support in September 2008 indicating that she did not exceed the capital requirements prescribed under Section 130(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (NI) Act 1992 and outlined under regulation 45 of the Income Support (General) Regulations (NI) 1987. The appellant argued that much of the money that she received from the sale of her house had been stolen, lent to friends or expended in other ways. The appellant claimed to be bi-polar and her legal representative noted that when in a state of euphoria, the appellant squandered the money realised from the sale of her home. The appellant argued that the tribunal’s findings, which found that she had actual and/or notional capital that exceeded the prescribed amount, were incorrect. The tribunal had applied the incorrect test when assessing whether the appellant purposefully divested herself of the capital, ‘reasonableness’ rather than ‘significant operative purpose’. In addition, the appellant argued that the tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations in relation to medical evidence on the applicant’s mental health and erred in its evaluation of this evidence as a reason for the appellant disposing of capital obtained from the house sale.
- PublicationSocio-Economic Rights and Ireland(Bloomsbury, 2015-10)First, this chapter considers the debates as to whether socio-economic rights can be considered human rights. Second, consideration is provided to the legal obligations upon Ireland under the ICESCR. Third, this chapter provides an overview of legislative provision and the debates surrounding constitutional recognition of socio-economic rights. In concluding, this chapter notes the significant difficulties that lie ahead for justiciable social-economic rights in Ireland.
- PublicationGlossary of terms: Irish asylum law(Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, 2013-11)A glossary of terms on Irish asylum law provided for the Cross Party Group on Direct Provision (Seanad Eireann).
- PublicationA Preliminary Human Rights Analysis of the Working Group Report and Recommendations on Direct Provision(University College Dublin, Human Rights Network, 2015-07)Overall, the Report contains a mix of significant recommendations on the protection process and processing of asylum claims. However, I argue, there are significant concerns with the recommendations that have emerged as regards direct provision accommodation and supports for asylum applicants. The focus of this working paper relates to categorising some of the recommendations contained in the McMahon Report and providing some initial analysis. This analysis is not an exhaustive exploration of every single recommendation made in the McMahon Report. There is a noticeable lack of any human rights analysis on the system of direct provision and ancillary supports provided for protection seekers. This is stark when compared to at least some level of human rights analysis that informed recommendations on the protection process.
- PublicationHuman rights law in the Republic of Ireland 2008(Hart Publishing, 2008)An overview of main developments in human rights law and policy in 2008.
- PublicationMhicMathúna v Ireland(Hart Publishing, 2016-04)This is a feminist re-imagining of the Supreme Court decision MhicMathúna v Ireland  1 I.R. 454. The actual Supreme Court decision in this case continues to have a profound impact upon how the Irish superior courts view constitutional socio-economic rights claims. This feminist judgment seeks to re-situate the legal analysis of constitutionalised socio-economic rights claims. However, this, as is seen from the feminist judgment, has not been an easy task. The plaintiffs' in this case attempted to argue for increased socio-economic rights protection, by, in the main arguing that 'unmarried mother' were being treated too 'generously' in comparison with the heteronormative marital family ideal of a working father, stay at home mother with child care responsibilities. This re-imagined judgment comes to the same conclusion as the Irish Supreme Court on the plaintiffs' claims-that nothing prevents the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) from providing financial allowances and supports to one parent families. However, this feminist judgment re-evaluates past jurisprudence and re-positions the legal place of one parent families (in particular 'unmarried mothers') as being capable of having constitutional rights protections, that can result in the Oireachtas providing special supports in recognising the significant caring function of this vulnerable group. A conclusion, albeit arguably obiter, reached in this feminist re-imagined judgment, is that, 'While not proven in this instance, there may be occasions, where, due to the absolute failure of the State to ensure individuals and families have a standard of living appropriate to this society, where human dignity is debased and/or bodily integrity is not respected and/or individuals right to develop as a human person is seriously hampered, that the Courts are constitutionally mandated to intervene.'
- PublicationGS v Department for Social Development (IS)  NICOM 284(Servicing the Legal System (SLS), 2012-09)The appellant was awarded Income Support from October 1990, which was later superseded to include housing costs from December 1997. In March 2008, a decision was made that the appellant no longer satisfied the conditions of entitlement to income support from 23 October 2003. In March 2010, a second decision was made that the appellant was not entitled to income support from November 2008 on the basis that he had capital in excess of the amount prescribed under Schedule 10 paragraph 8 of the Income Support (General) Regulations (NI) 1987. The Commissioner found that there were two issues that had to be examined, firstly relating to capital disregards between 2003 and 2006 and secondly, whether the appellant could be considered to have capital in excess of the prescribed limits as he may have had a chose in action against Mr. G McK.
- PublicationHorgan v Ireland(Oxford University Press, 2003)Whether the use of an Irish airport for United States aircraft engaged in a military attack in the State of Iraq violated Irish neutrality and was contrary to provisions of the Irish Constitution and/or international law.The OUP project International Law in Domestic Courts (ILDC) reports on domestic cases with international legal dimensions from over sixty-five different jurisdictions. As well as providing a summary of the most salient points of international legal concern, the case note provides commentary on the quality of legal reasoning utilised in the decision and the judgements compatibility with decided points of international law. Access to decisions is by subscription only.