Previous 14 / 15 Next

6/10/2020 Sinnott -v- The Minister for The Environment [2017] IEHC 214 (30 March 2017) UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 82. It was submitted that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“the UN Convention”) is enforceable in respect of the right to a secret ballot in European Parliament elections. The UN Convention was approved on behalf of the then European Community by Council Decision 2010\48\EC of 26th November, 2009 (OJ 2010L23, p. 35). 83. None of the Directives or regulations governed by the UN Convention relate to electoral procedures. There is no common electoral procedure within the European Union. 84. Any consideration of the UN Convention in Irish law therefore requires reference to be made to Article 29.6 of the Constitution, which provides that:“No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be provided by the Oireachtas”. 85. The Oireachtas has not legislated to give the UN Convention the status of domestic law. Therefore, the UN Convention does not advance the plaintiff’s case. European Convention on Human Rights 86. Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) (or a protocol to it) are relevant only insofar as the plaintiff can invoke specific provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) as the Convention has an effect in Irish law only through the medium of and to the limited extent provided for in the 2003 Act. 87. The plaintiff relies on s. 3(1) of the 2003 Act which provides:“Subject to any statutory provision (other than this Act) or rule of law, every organ of the State shall perform its functions in a manner compatible with the State's obligations under the Convention provisions”. 88. The voting procedures applicable are set out in statutory provisions as is required by the Constitution. The obligation on an organ of the State in s. 3(1) of the 2003 Act is expressly subject to any statutory provision. The defendants are correct in submittting that the relevant statutory provisions cannot be a breach of s. 3 of the 2003 Act. European Court of Human Rights 89. The submissions for the plaintiff candidly admitted that there was little case law from the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) on the right to a secret ballot. Without dwelling on the jurisprudence from the ECtHR I am satisfied that this Court will only be reviewing without offering any definitive view about the developments in this area if it engaged with the submissions for the plaintiff under this heading. Moreover, the reliefs which I have outlined for the plaintiff have persuaded me that it is not necessary to engage with the arguments about non-compliance with the ECHR. 90. Subject to hearing from counsel I will make an order along the lines set out at para 74 of this judgment. www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2017/H214.html 14/15

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Sinnott v. Minister for the Environment

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the plaintiff's inability to cast a secret ballot based on his visual impairment violated his right to vote.

Alleged Acts: The plaintiff in this case has approximately two or three percent of typical person his age. The plaintiff alleges that the government has not fully accommodated his right to vote. After the 2009 election the plaintiff discovered an additional medical issue with his eye and expects to lose the remainder of his vision. During the 2011 election the plaintiff was assisted by a clerk who read aloud his preferences both before and after completing the form. This procedure was completed again in 2011 and in 2012. In 2013, the plaintiff's polling place changed and he was no longer safely able to get to his polling station. In 2014 the plaintiff wrote the defendants expressing his concern and requesting a mechanisms to cast a private ballot for the upcoming May 2014 elections. In 2014 the plaintiff was unsure if the clerk following his instructions and cast his true preferences. In 2015 the plaintiff thought he found a solution by asking the clerk if place his fingers on different boxes. However, the plaintiff was unsure if at the time of submitting the ballot he did so with the ballot facing outwards and therefore voiding any secrecy.

Summary: The court determined that they must first look to whether a constitutional right is in asserted and correctly applied. The court here found the right to vote to be a constitutional right and adequately applied. The court then determined that if the right was applicable, the court must use the proper mechanisms to ensure that the right is vindicated. The Constitution itself requires that the ballots remain a secret to whatever extent possible.

Conclusion: The Minister did not give sufficient reasonable recognition of the duty to ensure that secret ballots were reasonably accessible. The Minister must publicly outline his plans to facilitate voting for visually impaired and blind individuals.

Legal Issue(s)

Elections as a Fundamental Right

Applicable Law(s): Elect. Act 94(5)(j) (1992) (Ire.)

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: Ireland

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Mar 30, 2017

Geolocation

Latitude: 53.340925847415214

Longitude: -6.2028134427433885

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Sinnott v. Minister for the Environment.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Sinnott v. Minister for the Environment

Primary Documents

Notifications