| 词条 | Byrne v. Ireland |
| 释义 |
|name = Byrne v. Ireland |court =Supreme Court of Ireland |image = |imagesize = |imagelink = |imagealt = |caption = |full name = |date decided ={{date|1972}} |citations = |transcripts = |judges = |number of judges = |decision by = |prior actions = |appealed from = |appealed to = |subsequent actions = |related actions = |opinions = |keywords = |italic title = }}Byrne v. Ireland (1972) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Ireland that is important because it abolished the immunity of the State in tort,[1] meaning that the State could be sued for the actions of its servants. The case also determined that the Attorney General was the appropriate party to represent the State in these tort cases.[1][2] Facts of the CaseThe Plaintiff (Miss Kathleen Byrne) was walking on a sidewalk outside her home in Co. Wicklow on September 18, 1965, when it subsided causing her an injury; a cable-laying team from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had been working on the sidewalk.[2][5][1] Byrne sued the People of Ireland and the Attorney General for negligence, breach of statutory duty and nuisance as a result of the actions of the State's servants.[3][1] After an intervention by the Chief State Solicitor, The case then proceeded on appeal to the Supreme Court where it was considered in 1969 and the majority ... it should be noted that in case of Byrne v. Ireland the Supreme Court rejected the State’s contention that it was immune from tortuous liability; the State was found to be a juristic person who would be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its servants committed in the course of employment. The plaintiff, therefore, succeeded in her action for damages for injuries sustained when she fell into a trench dug on the authority of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The Court further held that the Attorney General is the appropriate person to represent the State against such a claim for damages (Whateley, 2010:4).[2] The High CourtThe Plaintiff argued the following points:
The Judge specified that where Ireland is mentioned in the Constitution, it is also used interchangeably with the State, and referred to the national territory, but not the people of Ireland.[1] The Judge laid out that while Ireland has the characteristic of juristic personality (based on judgements in Comyn v Attorney General, and Commissioners of Public Works v. Kavanagh) because it holds property, it does not mean that it is "a juristic person capable of acting in every regard, and in all respects, as if were a company or a corporation; or that it is capable of being sued in the Courts" (Murnaghan, J, 1972:250).[1] The judgement in the Carolan v. Minister for Defence case was that there could be no vicarious liability owing to the Minister for Defence due to the negligence of his driver because they were fellow servants.[3] The judge did address the issue of the Civil Liability Act (1961) which seemed to acknowledge that the State could be sued, but differentiated the point by asserting that one of the organs of the State (in this context, the Minister for Finance) could be sued without implying the loss of legal immunity to the State.[3] Murnaghan J. did not leave the Plaintiff without reference to a legal remedy open to her, which was to seek damages from the individuals involved in the case.[3][1] In conclusion, the Plaintiff's case was rejected by the Judge as he submitted that the sovereignty of Ireland (re Article 5) provided State immunity.[1] In her appeal to the Supreme Court, counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the immunity enjoyed by the Crown did not survive the 1922 Constitution, and therefore the People (or the State) could not have inherited that royal prerogative.[1] The Supreme CourtThe judgements came from Walsh J., Budd J. and (dissenting) Fitzgerald J.[1] Walsh J. disagreed with the High Court judge's interpretation of Article 5 in the Constitution to support the argument that the State enjoyed immunity, with the implicit understanding that the State is above the law.[1] The judge went on to say that the Constitution establishes the role of the Oireachtas to make laws and for the Judiciary to administer the law and these roles of two organs of the State would not require the State to be above the law.[1] Budd J. refers to Article 1 in the Constitution which enshrines the nation with the right to select a specific form of government; and asserts that Article 5 means that the government is subject to the powers given to people in the Constitution.[1] Furthermore, Walsh J. states that it is not required that immunity from litigation should be an ingredient of being a sovereign state.[1] Budd J. stated that the Constitution helps to provide rights and remedies for people, and that if the drafters of the Constitution intended the State to have immunity, this would have been explicitly stated in the Constitution, as can be seen in Article 13, relating to the immunity of the President.[1] Budd J. asserts that as the King departed with the establishment of the Irish Constitution, any 'feudal' assumptions of legal immunity have also disappeared.[3][1] Budd J. stated that if Ireland is a juristic person (as established in Comyn v Attorney General and Commissioner of Public Works v Kavanagh) then prima facie there would appear to be no reason why the State cannot be sued, as with any juristic person.[1] Fitzgerald J. dissented from the judgement of the Supreme Court.[1] In conclusion, the Court found that the State could be sued and specified that the Attorney General was the appropriate party in such legal proceedings.[1] ConclusionThis is a landmark case in Ireland, with the profound implication as stated by Osborough (1976): "The immunity of the State in tort had been given its quietus"[3] and the concerns of the judge in the High Court about the risks of Ministers and their servants being held liable for errors[5] indicates how significant the subsequent ruling in the Supreme Court was. Judicial acts would seem to be protected with immunity by common law rules and the Constitution.[5] The judgement in Byrne v Ireland and the Attorney General also reinforced and extended the existing tortious liability of the State relating to road accidents caused by agents of the State in publicly owned vehicles in the Civil Liability Act (1961).[5] The historical context of the landmark decision is captured in Binchy's (2016) characterisation of it as marking the emerging nature of the Irish state as a servant of its people rather than a repository of sovereign rights and immunity inherent in the Crown.[6] External links
See alsoLaw of the Republic of IrelandSupreme Court of IrelandHigh Court (Ireland){{Law}} References1. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 {{Cite web|url=http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/0DB47EC4C44056A28025765C00597BDD/$FILE/Byrne%20v%20Ireland.pdf|title=Byrne v. Ireland|last=|first=|date=1969|website=Supreme Court Library|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2017-07-17}} 2. ^1 2 3 4 {{Cite web|url=https://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/Budapest_Paper_-_Helen_Whately_06052010.pdf|title=Civil Liability of Prosecutors under Irish Law|last=Whatley|first=Helen|date=2010-05-06|website=DPP Ireland|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2017-08-06}} 3. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 {{Cite journal|last=Osborough|first=Nial|date=1973|title=THE DEMISE OF THE STATE'S IMMUNITY IN TORT|jstor=44027900|journal=Irish Jurist (1966-)|volume=8|issue=2|pages=275–296|doi=10.2307/44027900}} 4. ^1 {{Cite news|url=https://lawinireland.wordpress.com/constitutional-law/|title=Constitutional Law|date=2013-03-12|work=Irish Law: A student's Guide|access-date=2017-08-06|language=en-US}} 5. ^1 2 {{Cite journal|last=Osborough|first=W. N.|date=1976|title=THE STATE'S TORTIOUS LIABILITY: FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON "BYRNE" v. "IRELAND"—II|jstor=44026318|journal=Irish Jurist (1966-)|volume=11|issue=2|pages=279–308}} 6. ^{{Cite journal|last=Binchy|first=William|date=|title=TORT LAW IN IRELAND: A HALF-CENTURY REVIEW|url=|journal=The Irish Jurist: 2016, 56|volume=56|pages=199–218|via=}} 3 : Law in the Republic of Ireland|Republic of Ireland constitutional case law|Supreme Court of Ireland cases |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。