What does Law mean, Mumu?

In episode 6, which was the last in the series, we hear about  the “Murphy Case” (1982), which dealt with the taxation of married women at that time in Ireland.  The sequence of events and the challenges involved in bringing this case successfully to the Supreme Court are described by acclaimed lawyer and academic Professor Yvonne Scannell who had been pivotal in raising awareness about the injustices involved with regard to the taxation of married women and ultimately bringing this case to court as a significant legal challenge - which changed the lives of many people.

This episode recalls the significance of the  Supreme Court decision in the case of:  “The State (Healy) v O’Donoghue”, and outlines the sequence of events leading to the Supreme Court decision establishing legal representation and legal aid as part of a fair trial, in Ireland at that time.  There is a detailed account  of the circumstances with regard to the prosecution of young offenders at a time when they  could be sent to places of detention, without having had a solicitor representing them, presented by leading Irish lawyer Ercus Stewart, S.C. who had been involved in a constitutional challenge that brought about change with far-reaching implications.

Episode 4 brings to light the significance of a High Court case, the decision of which was overturned in the Supreme Court in 1971.  The name of the case was “Byrne v Ireland”, the outcome  of which was that the former “prerogative of immunity from suit” did not exist in Ireland after the enactment of the Constitution of the Irish Free State,1922, and therefore was not vested or continued by Articles 49 and 50 of the Constitution of Ireland, 1937.  The “prerogative of immunity from suit” refers to the principle “The king could do no wrong” – meaning that the citizen could not sue the Monarch or the State.  

The commentary on this case and its historical context was provided by the late Mr Justice Donal Barrington, S.C. who had actually acted in the case that he chose as being one of relevance to feature in this series. Donal Barrington passed away in 2018 and I extend my condolences to his widow – Eileen and his family.

This episode involves an analysis of the legal complexities in the divorce case of Mrs Katharine O’Shea, taken by her husband - Captain William O'Shea - in London (1890) which involved Irish Statesman - Charles Stewart Parnell.  

The commentary on the 'O’Shea Divorce Case' in which Irish Politician Charles Stewart Parnell, was named as co-respondent, is provided by esteemed Irish author, biographer, and historian Frank Callanan, S.C.  

This episode reviewed the “McGee Case” (1973), in which Mary McGee, a 27-year-old mother of four, took a case against the Attorney General and the Revenue Commissioners, in Ireland, because at that time, she could not get access to contraceptives.  This case was selected by, Gerard Hogan, S.C., a leading Irish lawyer, author, and academic who provided the commentary and analysis.  It must be pointed out that Gerard Hogan’s career advanced significantly, in the legal world, since the recording of his observations and contribution in 2005. Having served in the High Court and Court of Appeal, he was Ireland’s appointee as Advocate General to the European Court of Justice, in 2018 and, in 2021, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan was appointed to the Irish Supreme Court.

The first programme in the series reviewed the “De Burca Case” (1976) which was about the automatic right of women to sit on juries, or put the other way, the right of women not to have to be tried by a jury of all men.  This episode benefitted from observation, commentary, and analysis from leading Irish lawyer and academic – now Judge of the Irish Supreme Court, Gerard Hogan, S.C., and had the benefit of an interview with one of the protagonists in the case – Irish journalist and writer - Máirín De Burca - who gives her first hand experience of the journey this legal challenge travelled to success in  the Irish Supreme Court.

In the postscript to the Podcast Series, Paulyn pays respect to the Poet Eavan Boland who died suddenly in April 2020. In Chapter six of the Book where Mumu discusses the Corn Laws and the Great Famine in Ireland, she had referred to one of Eavan Boland’s poems – ‘Quarantine’ – never imagining  that, in 2020,  we would be experiencing quarantines in face of the Covid – 19 pandemic. It seems appropriate to refer to Ms Boland’s significant contribution as a woman Poet and to read her poem ‘Night Feed’.

In Episode 14: we discuss many subjects in this last chapter of the Book. We reflect on words and their meanings and the need for precise clear communications in human interactions – we recognise that  the essential element of good communication is  listening – active listening    We discuss the fact that ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’.  That led us to an interesting discussion about Latin – the language of learning - and the part it plays in some legal concepts. We reflect on  the fact  that so many of the questions, that had come from the group of  young people, that gave rise to this Book, were about trust in police forces – trust in  the judges and the courts ‘to get things right’. It was quite revealing that the preliminary questions, that they told Mumu they had submitted, as part of their penfriend project, to their friend in France, were questions about the symbols of justice, how people dressed in the courts, what the formalities of the court systems were in France and also if people trusted their police and what  French people thought of them.  

And, in many respects, the question that had been put by Nova, when we were discussing the horrors of the First and Second World Wars, as we sat in Collins Barracks, and reflected on the work of  the anti-war hero, Harry Patch, when she asked: “Why can’t we just share this world, we only have one world?” reveals so much.

In that respect, she represented the curiosity that gave rise to this Book. This is an apt and fitting way of ending Episode 14 because this emerging ‘fledgling generation’ is now on its own conveyor belt. It is important for them to reflect on the principles discussed and to keep being curious - and keep feeling the need to ask and find out more - and scrutinise the information that they are being given - and testing the administrative processes that support our democracies.

In Episode 13: we reflect on topics with  reference to the continuing unrest in the United States and the focus on violations of police power in communities that already feel alienated and are subjected to an excessive  amount of police surveillance and even police brutality which is recognised to be rooted in prejudice and racism  .  We also look at bullying as a subject and we reflect on the difference between bullying and harassment and we delve into the many programmes that are there, both in schools, colleges and in work places which have the aim and objective of having zero tolerance for bullying and we discuss the ways and means of trying to ‘nip it in the bud ‘and ‘stop it at source’.

We recall the long standing search in the law for the ‘reasonable man’ in an attempt to define a ‘an objective reasonable view’ and I introduce you to the concept of   ‘The man on the Clapham Omnibus’.

In Episode 12: we discuss some connected themes from the ‘walk and talk’ that opened up so many relevant topics. We reflect on the wisdom handed down by some of our poets over time and we recall a comment made by Seamus Heaney, the Poet Laureate who referred to every generation being on its own conveyor belt.  This led us to a discussion about technology, social media, and all of the landscape on which the upcoming generation is living and attempting to navigate.  We discuss the need for scrutiny over the dissemination of information and scrutiny with regard to the potentially damaging powers that social media can have in influencing people in many respects even with regards to how people vote.