logo
Government accepts super juniors are involved in Cabinet decision-making, court told

Government accepts super juniors are involved in Cabinet decision-making, court told

BreakingNews.ie08-07-2025
The Government accepts super junior ministers are involved in decision-making at Cabinet meetings, despite there being no Constitutional basis for this involvement, the High Court has been told.
Eileen Barrington SC made the argument at the hearing of Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly's action, which claims the appointment of Ministers of State attending Cabinet – or super junior ministers – is unconstitutional. The action is against the Taoiseach, the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General.
Advertisement
The Attorney General, who is leading the State parties' defence of the case, told the court on Tuesday that Mr Daly's proceedings are a 'political challenge to the integrity of the Government'.
Rossa Fanning previously submitted that Mr Daly's case seeks the judiciary's 'unprecedented' intervention in the inner workings of the Government's executive branch.
Super junior ministers are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Taoiseach. They participate at Government meetings but do not vote.
Senior government ministers are appointed by the President of Ireland on the advice of the Taoiseach and with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann.
Advertisement
At present, there are four super-junior ministers attending Cabinet: Fianna Fáil's Mary Butler, Hildegarde Naughton of Fine Gael, and Noel Grealish and Seán Canney of the Regional Independent Group. They are not parties to the case.
Mr Daly's case points to Article 28 of the Constitution, which limits the number of government members to 15, including the Taoiseach, and provides that they meet and act as a collective authority.
On Tuesday, Ms Barrington, for Mr Daly, said Article 28 outlines who can attend meetings of Government, what their role is, and how they should act.
She said their case is that super-junior ministers are not supposed to be at meetings of Government, because the Constitution doesn't provide for their attendance.
Advertisement
Deciding what Article 28 means is the 'real issue' of this case, Ms Barrington said. She said that if the court accepts their interpretation of the article, their case must succeed.
She said the Attorney General accepted super-junior ministers are involved in discussion and decision-making at Government meetings. 'That's the key fact. They're involved in the drive to consensus. And our case is a simple one – they shouldn't be doing that,' she said.
Ms Barrington said meetings of Government were the 'final, vital executive act of the State, governed and circumscribed by the Constitution itself'.
On Monday, the Attorney General submitted that because there is no Constitutional regulation of who attends Cabinet meetings, who attends is matter exclusively for the Government itself.
Advertisement
Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's case wrongly conflated attending meetings of Cabinet with being a senior government minister.
Mr Fanning also submitted that Cabinet meetings are only one element of Government decision-making, and cannot be looked at artificially in isolation of the other parts of that process.
On Tuesday, Mr Fanning reiterated his side's contention that Mr Daly's case was politically motivated.
Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's case was seeking the courts' engagement in an extraordinary incursion in the autonomy and independence of the executive branch' by regulating who attends Cabinet meetings.
Advertisement
'There is no way to characterise these proceedings other than a political challenge to the integrity of the Government from the very outset of its existence,' Mr Fanning said.
Mr Fanning said the case should not be decided on hypothetical scenarios put forward Mr Daly's side – rather, the case should be decided on facts. In response, Ms Barrington said their side was entitled to bring arguments to their logical end points.
Feichín McDonagh SC, for Mr Daly, on Monday submitted that under the current scenario, there is no limit to the amount of people that can attend meetings of Government. Further to this, those invited to attend Cabinet by the Taoiseach do not necessarily have to be politicians, he said.
Ireland
Court orders extradition of former priest and seri...
Read More
'You could have 10 lay people, or prominent businessmen or women ... or anyone at all,' Mr McDonagh submitted. 'That is the consequence of the scenario we're in.'
In response, Mr Fanning noted the number of people attending Cabinet has grown from 16 to 19 since 1994. He said this was not an 'apocalyptic level' of growth in the size of Government meetings.
The case, sitting before a three-judge divisional court, continues.
A similar case, brought by People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy, will open following the conclusion of Mr Daly's case.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In landmark opinion, the World Court says climate change is an 'existential threat'
In landmark opinion, the World Court says climate change is an 'existential threat'

Reuters

time5 minutes ago

  • Reuters

In landmark opinion, the World Court says climate change is an 'existential threat'

THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday underlined "the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change" as it started to read out an opinion on the legal obligations of states to take action. The non-binding opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," judge Yuji Iwasawa said. The reading of the opinion was ongoing and the court had not yet announced its conclusions. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!" Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague will nevertheless carry legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. "It is so important, it could be one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times because of the scope of the issues that it touches, which run to the very heart of climate justice," said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. The two questions the U.N. General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N. said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE ( opens new tab, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was still a victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate, opens new tab to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues like pollution or emissions. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to," Chowdhury said.

Judicial system needs ‘shake-up' after trader convictions, says Sir David Davis
Judicial system needs ‘shake-up' after trader convictions, says Sir David Davis

The Independent

time9 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Judicial system needs ‘shake-up' after trader convictions, says Sir David Davis

Conservative MP Sir David Davis has said the judicial system 'needs a shake-up' after describing the convictions of two former financial market traders as a 'major scandal'. Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo were found guilty over benchmark interest rate rigging in 2015 and 2019 respectively, but had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The former UBS trader and the ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank were said to have manipulated the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor). Speaking at a press conference following the Supreme Court judgment, Sir David described the two men as 'scapegoats for the sins that led to the financial crisis'. He said: 'The implications are far-reaching and of course have been devastating for those caught up in it. 'There were several other people convicted of rate rigging, dozens of others who were either prosecuted, acquitted or not prosecuted. Their lives were upended too. 'This scapegoating exercise happened as a result of collusion between the banks and government agencies, including the SFO (Serious Fraud Office) and FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) and we're not done with that. 'This scandal also highlights the need for urgent reform within our justice system on a range of issues – the handling of expert witnesses right through to the rigidity of the appeals system.' In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said judges' misdirection to the juries had led to the men's wrongful convictions. He said: 'The history of these two cases raises concerns about the effectiveness of the criminal appeal system in England and Wales in confronting legal error.' Sir David said the Supreme Court justices 'did not unpack' why the appeal system fell into error in these cases. He said: 'I think the judicial system needs a shake-up, and this is the latest demonstrator of it, and we will be returning to it in the future.' Mr Hayes said he believes the trials of the two men became caught up in the politics of the financial crisis, adding that there was a 'big desire from institutions and politicians, acting in their own interest largely', for traders to go to prison. Asked about his thoughts on what role juries play in cases like his and Mr Palombo's, he said it was a 'dangerous idea' for complicated fraud and financial cases to be heard only by a judge. The former trader added: 'The jury is the last defensive barrier that every citizen in this country has between them and a wrongful conviction. 'And are juries perfect? No, they're not. Do they make mistakes? Yes, they do. And you know, it's the best of a whole load of options, none of which is perfect.' Ben Rose, part of Mr Palombo's legal team, said Wednesday's Supreme Court judgment is 'likely to offer a route' by which others who have been convicted in similar circumstances 'can right the wrong that has been done to them'. He also said there was a 'fundamental error' in the way the case was prosecuted and that the role of the jury was 'overridden and usurped' by the judges. The lawyer added: 'That should not happen in a country that abides by the rule of law.'

What to expect from Modi's visit to UK
What to expect from Modi's visit to UK

The Independent

time34 minutes ago

  • The Independent

What to expect from Modi's visit to UK

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi is travelling to the UK to formally sign a free trade agreement amid global trade tensions sparked by Donald Trump 's tariffs. The long-awaited signing of the India-UK Free Trade Agreement, agreed in May after three years of negotiations and described variously as 'landmark' and 'historic', is the centrepiece of the visit. Mr Modi's two-day state visit, starting Wednesday, is his fourth to the UK and comes at a pivotal moment for both nations. For India, it offers a chance to diversify trade and diplomatic partnerships. For the UK, still grappling with post-Brexit trade issues, the deal represents a rare economic breakthrough. Mr Modi's trade minister, Piyush Goyal, is accompanying him for the formal signing, an Indian commerce ministry official said. 'This is a significant agreement," Vikram Misri, India's foreign secretary, told reporters on Tuesday, adding that legal vetting of the deal was near completion. Mr Modi is meeting his counterpart Keir Starmer for 'wide-ranging' talks on trade, defence, security and technological cooperation as well as climate. He is likely to meet King Charles as well. While the trade deal remains the focal point, the trip is also aimed at resetting bilateral ties, deepening strategic cooperation, and amplifying people-to-people links. The agreement, expected to boost a £42.6bn trading relationship, was finalised after 14 formal rounds of negotiations. Mr Goyal earlier called the deal 'a turning point in India's outward economic engagement and a win-win for both economies'. Mr Starmer hailed it as 'a bold step forward for Global Britain', projecting it to boost GDP by £4.8bn annually and potentially support over 30,000 new jobs. Under the deal, the UK agreed to eliminate or phase out tariffs on over 99 per cent of Indian exports, including textiles, auto parts, leather goods, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural products. India in turn agreed to cut tariffs on 90 per cent of British goods. It agreed to significantly lower levies on British exports like Scotch whisky, Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles, luxury cosmetics, and certain high-tech goods. British cars, which currently attract tariffs of over 100 per cent in India, will see duties reduced to 10 per cent. The deal also offers tariff concessions on medical devices, pharmaceuticals, aircraft components, and electronic goods. In return, Indian manufacturers are expected to gain access to the UK market for electric and hybrid vehicles, the commerce ministry official said. 'The UK is an important market for Indian exporters," said Ajay Sahai, director general of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, adding the pact would boost trade and provide access for Indian sectors like textiles, footwear, marine and engineering products. Beyond trade, Mr Modi and Mr Starmer are likely to discuss bolstering the India-UK Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, originally launched in 2021. Mr Modi is also scheduled to meet leaders of the Indian diaspora, estimated at over 1.7m. The free trade deal had to undergo parliamentary scrutiny in the UK and a review by the Indian cabinet before it could come into force. The Indian cabinet approved the deal on Tuesday after a legal scrubbing of its text. The British parliament is yet to approve it. Sensitivities remain around issues that are either unresolved or that have been quietly sidestepped for now. India has firmly excluded agriculture from the scope of the deal, a politically and economically sensitive sector that sustains more than 40 per cent of the country's workforce. This longstanding red line reflects New Delhi's resistance to exposing its farmers to foreign competition and has complicated talks with other major partners, including the US. Among the more controversial provisions is India's commitment to gradually lower tariffs on certain British imports such as Scotch whisky and luxury vehicles. While these sectors are crucial for the UK, Indian manufacturers, particularly in the alcohol industry, have warned a flood of high-end imports could affect the market and harm homegrown brands. Mr Modi's trip to the UK is part of a two-nation tour. From the UK, he will visit the Maldives for his third trip to the island nation and first since Mohamed Muizzu, known for his pro-China leanings, became president in November 2023.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store