6/10/2020
Sinnott -v- The Minister for The Environment [2017] IEHC 214 (30 March 2017)
The Plaintiff
2. The plaintiff was born with nanophtalmia in his left eye and microphtalmia in his right eye. He
explained that he had at best two percent or three percent of a young person’s normal vision when
growing. The plaintiff has an inspiring desire to learn and to participate. This is shown not least by
having graduated with an honours degree in politics and sociology from University College Dublin (UCD)
in 2000 in addition to other noteworthy academic achievements resting to date with his pursuit of a PhD
in Irish from Trinity College Dublin (TCD) concerning Irish in Leinster. The plaintiff also said that he was
proud, happy and lucky to be an active father of two young children.
Change in Voting Ability
3. The elections for local authorities and for the European Parliament on 5th June, 2009 were the last
elections during which the Plaintiff was able to vote without assistance and without having to disclose his
choice of candidates to another individual. Following the dislocation of the lens in his right eye
subsequent to 2009, it was discovered that his retina was degenerating quickly. In short, the plaintiff
expects to lose all of his remaining limited sight within the next few years.
4. At the general election held on 25th February, 2011, the plaintiff voted in the Dublin South Central
Constituency. He was at pains to describe the well intentioned help given by the polling clerk while the
clerk did not realise the plaintiff’s embarrassment when his preference of candidates was read aloud by
the clerk initially and then after the ballot paper was completed by the clerk according to the plaintiff’s
instructions.
5. At the election for the President of Ireland and two other referenda held on 27th October, 2011, the
plaintiff was again assisted by a clerk who recited his choices less loudly. The plaintiff availed of similar
facilities for the referenda held on 31st May, 2012. The plaintiff was unable to vote in the referenda
concerning the Seanad and a Court of Appeal on 4th October, 2013 due to the change of his polling
station, access to which he regarded as difficult and unsafe due to his visual impairment.
6. In a four page letter dated 7th March, 2014 from the plaintiff’s solicitors, the defendant Minister was
advised about the plaintiff’s earlier representations to the franchise section of the Minister’s department
(“the franchise section”) concerning the absence of a mechanism for independent voting and other
details available to the franchise section including the discussion about tactile templates considered by
the National Council for the Blind in Ireland (“NCBI”) before requesting an undertaking that there would
be a mechanism to allow the plaintiff to vote secretly in the elections due to be held on 23rd May, 2014
for his local authority and for the European Parliament.
7. Despite the delivery of the Plenary Summons and Statement of Claim on 26th March, 2014, with a
Defence delivered on 9th April, 2014 in these proceedings, the plaintiff had the unhappy experience of
wondering whether his choices in the elections held in May, 2014 were actually followed by the polling
clerk because the numbering of his choices as recited at a particular stage of marking the ballot paper
identified a preference which he had not by then identified.
8. The plaintiff for the referendum on the Thirty-Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage
Equality) Bill 2015 to allow for same sex marriage on 22nd May, 2015 worked around the necessity to
disclose his choice of “yes” or “no” by asking the polling clerk to put the plaintiff’s thumb on one box and
his index finger on the other. When the clerk moved away, the plaintiff marked the paper selecting the
“yes” or “no” box by reference to where his fingers had been pointed by the clerk. The plaintiff then
moved and placed the paper in the ballot box himself. The plaintiff’s delight at finding this solution was
tempered by his realisation that the ballot paper could have been facing out to disclose his choices as he
moved to drop it in the ballot box.
9. This prompted the plaintiff to question the apparent acceptance that he could rely on the integrity of
polling clerks or some other official to present or mark ballot papers correctly. He rhetorically asked
whether it would be acceptable to provide that a sighted person cast a vote by relying on a member of
An Garda Síochána to carry out all or part of the secret ballot procedure.
Progress of Proceedings
10. Notwithstanding the efforts made, the trial of these proceedings did not commence until 12th July,
2016. At that stage the plaintiff had been given liberty on 3rd February, 2015 to amend the Statement of
Claim in order to incorporate references to referenda and further elections while the Defence (delivered
on 18th March, 2015) introduced a plea about trials conducted by the National Disability Authority
www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2017/H214.html
2/15