Unenumerated Rights – Sustainable in Modern Ireland?

This is my response to a paper with the above title, original can be found here: https://trinitycollegelawreview.org/unenumerated-rights-suitable-in-modern-ireland/?fbclid=IwAR3uBR0OVCKEpjIH7Cf5SExPqiAht1xLxGbNwQikocyVpdW7FiiR04lbeIg

From a humble citizen’s unqualified perspective, Ryan V AG is central to this article/essay, in which the big takeaway is that no rights are absolute. That ruling is often referred to when explaining the incompatibility of ECHR with Irish law; while Ireland is a signatory to both the UN and EU charters on human rights, Co- Guarantor of the citizens in N. Irelands rights, it claims the charters are repugnant to our constitution. Ryan V AG also outlines the discretion that the judiciary have to apply one-time arbitrary rights which set no precedent and end in ex-gratia settlements, in other cases European rulings have been spressed by the supreme court. In comparison with our EU and US counterparts, Irish citizens appear to have the legal status of Indentured Servants in relation to the state. Where I come from “Unenumerated Rights” would be referred to as “lucky bag rights” dispensed at will.

Our cousins in the US would say that their bill of rights is the restraint on government. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” there is no such restraint on Government in Ireland, even the basic rights granted by the British enacted 1922 constitution were removed. The restraint against inventing new special purpose court, the right to a fair trial, habeas corpus, elements considered the basis of any civil society are not rights per se in Ireland. Should we expect the citizens of Northern Ireland to accept those terms in any future United Ireland? The DPP holds a monopoly on criminal prosecution and there are very few avenues of civil recourse against the state for a citizen, what avenues do exist appear far more like cul-de-sacs.“In summary, the crucial, social function provided by the DPP and the Gardaí has made the Irish Courts reluctant to impose any civil liability on them; fearing that such an imposition would hamper the effective operation of the criminal justice system.” Helen Whately Legal Researcher, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Having received its Royal Charter from Henry VIII, Kings Inn will soon be 500 years old. The court services celebrated their bicentenary in 1998. Indeed, most Irish establishments have their roots based in British rule, which we inherited during the handover as a result of the treaty, Has the philosophy of these institutions changed to any great degree and is it evident in our written law & interpreted through the courts?I read a book authored by a Trinity student titled “The Civil Service and The Revolution” where it tackles the two contradictory accounts of the process by which an Irish State replaced the British State in Ireland. He quotes Kevin O’Higgins, a minister in the Provisional Government, describing himself in 1922 as standing amongst the ruins of the British empire in Ireland while contrasting it with “the magisterial calm of Joseph Brennan, who had been a senior civil servant in Dublin at the handover” describing, “no immediate disturbance of any fundamental kind in the daily work of the average Civil Servant”. It was business as usual, and I am sure that our judiciary would have a similar tale to tell. Is this why, as we approach the state’s first centenary, and 223 years of Irish courts operating, that the Irish judiciary to this day are not capable of defining even the most basic rights required by civil societies all around us. What rights that are attributed to the citizen in the ’37 constitution come with a disclaimer. In a paper written by Susan Denham, she speaks about the group of civil servants and barristers who wrote the constitution. I believe most had served in the British administration prior to 1922, and the group was headed by a man named Hearne. So, the preamble holds no relief, it may be viewed as men’s rea by some. Irish people did not thrust the constitution onto an unwitting establishment. In fact, they’re not qualified to interpret its contents. That privilege is the reserve of the courts, and the courts cannot be held to anything they say on any given day.

Unenumerated Rights – Sustainable in Modern Ireland? I think a more pertinent question would be how will anyone justify any of this as the broader public becomes aware in this age of information? Is there justification? Are Irish people less worthy of rights? What does this say about our Judiciary and wider legal fraternity?


The Budapest paper

Civil Liability of Prosecutors under Irish Law1This paper was prepared by Helen Whately, Legal Researcher, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in response to a questionnaire from the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Hungary in 2008. A conference was held in March 2010, entitled “Civil Liability of Prosecution Services and Individual Prosecutors” to discuss responses from various jurisdictions to the questionnaire. The paper was revised after the Conference and submitted for publication in the final report on the review process. IntroductionThe Irish legal system is made up from a combination of common law, statute law and constitutional law. The common law system relies on the doctrine of precedent, with a strong focus on previously decided case law. Irish law is subservient to a written Constitution, which guarantees the rights and freedoms of Irish citizens, among others. Ireland is also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated into Irish law by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. However the Convention was incorporated at a sub constitutional level: legislation cannot be struck down by the courts simply by virtue of it being incompatible with the Convention and compensation for any violations of Convention rights will not be paid as of right but on an ex gratia basis. In order to evaluate the liability of public prosecutors in Ireland one must consider the nature of the Office and its role in the Irish criminal justice system. The Evolution of the Irish ProsecutorThe Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides for an Attorney General “who shall be the advisor of the Government in matters of law and legal opinion”. The Constitution also provided for the prosecution of all indictable crime in the name of the People at the suit of the Attorney General or some other person authorised in accordance with law to act for that purpose. From 1937 to 1974 the Attorney General continued to exercise both these functions. In addition to exercising the function as legal advisor to the government, the Attorney General had, and continues to have, a function to act as representative of the public in legal proceedings for the assertion of protection of public rights.

The Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, effected a transfer to the newly created Office of Director of Public Prosecutions of “all the functions capable of being performed in relation to criminal matters and in relation to election petitions and referendum petitions by the Attorney General” immediately before the commencements of that Act. Section 2(5) of the 1974 Act dictates that the Director “shall be independent in the performance of his functions”. While the Act provides that the Director and the Attorney General “shall consult together from time to time in relation to matters pertaining to the functions of the Director” the Attorney General has no power to give an instruction to the Director. Any examination of the liability of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution in civil law must be viewed in light of this independence. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution exercises its functions on behalf of the State and not individual complainants. As a result of this the Office originally maintained a policy of not giving reasons to victims for decisions taken not to prosecute. However this policy is currently under review; in October 2008 the Office began a pilot scheme whereby reasons for a decision not to prosecute would be provided in cases where there has been a fatality. In implementing any policy change, the Office must be aware of the rights of a suspect, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a good name. Therefore should the review lead to a widespread policy change on this issue, it is likely that the Office’s duty towards those accused or suspected of a crime will come to the fore.

Statute Law Statutory Remedy for Miscarriages of JusticeThe Criminal Procedure Act 1993 introduced a statutory right to compensation where it is established that a newly discovered fact shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice by virtue of a conviction. Section 2 of the Act confers jurisdiction on Court of Criminal Appeal to quash a conviction or review a sentence imposed in a previously and finally decided case where the convicted person claims that a new or newly-discovered facts shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice in relation to the conviction or that the sentence imposed was excessive. Section 9 (1) details the conditions necessary for the payment of compensation: (1) Where a person has been convicted of an offence and either— (a) (i) his conviction has been quashed by the Court on an application under section 2 or on appeal, or he has been acquitted in any re-trial, and(ii) the Court or the court of re-trial, as the case may be, has certified that a newly-discovered fact shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice, or (b) (i) he has been pardoned as a result of a petition under section 7, and

(ii) the Minister for Justice is of opinion that a newly-discovered fact shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the Minister shall, subject to subsections

(2) and (3), pay compensation to the convicted person or, if he is dead, to his legal personal representatives unless the non-disclosure of the fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to the convicted person. It will be noted that a plaintiff must have been convicted before any right to compensation arises. Therefore an acquittal at trial will not give rise to any such claim. Subsection 2 of section 9 dictates that an individual may apply for compensation under the Act orinstitute an action for damages arising out of the conviction; this would suggest that one cannot do both. Section 9(4) dictates that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform shall determine the amount of compensation payable. Any person dissatisfied with the amount of compensation may apply to the High Court to determine the appropriate amount; section 9(5) states that the award of the High Court shall be final. Section 9 was successfully invoked in the case of Francis Shortt v. The Commissioner of an Gárda Síochána Ireland and the Attorney General3. The applicant’s conviction was declared a miscarriage of justice in 20024. It appeared that he had been convicted on the perjured evidence of two unscrupulous Gardaí wishing to further their careers. After successfully appealing his claim for damages to the Supreme Court the applicant was awarded €4,623,871.00. Compensation under the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 is not merely available where there has been misconduct on the part of any State agent. In the case of DPP v. Hannon5 the applicant was convicted of sexual assault and common assault allegedly perpetrated against his ten year old neighbour. Nine years after the alleged offence the complainant admitted to Gardaí that the offence had not occurred at all and that she had fabricated the entire incident. It was argued on behalf of the Office of the DPP that the applicant was not entitled to damages because there was no culpability on the part of the State or its agents. The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected this contention noting that international obligations required compensation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred; a requirement that there be evidence of state culpability before the right to compensation arose was not in keeping with such obligations. The case of an innocent person wrongly convicted was clearly found to be a miscarriage of justice. Tort Law There is limited opportunity under statute, outlined above, for an individual to make a claim for compensation against the State for wrongs committed in the criminal justice sphere. We must therefore turn to Irish tort law to determine whether any further rights to open a civil lawsuit exist. At the outset it should be noted that in case of Byrne v. Ireland6the 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. The concept of vicarious liability suffers from difficulties of interpretation: who is a servant and when are their actions in the course of employment? However the Irish courts have declared a number of actors to be state servants, for example judges, Gardaí7 and members of the defence forces have all been so classified. Therefore it would seem that public prosecutors could be so viewed. We will now turn to specific areas of tort law that may be of assistance to a civil litigant. Malicious Prosecution

The tort of malicious prosecution was developed at a time when prosecutions were initiated by private individuals, which necessitated a remedy against such prosecutions brought with ulterior motives. To successfully prove the tort the plaintiff must show that:

(i) the criminal proceedings terminated in his favour;

(ii) the defendant instituted and/or participated in the proceedings maliciously;

(iii) there was no reasonable or probable cause for such proceedings;

(iv) the plaintiff suffered damage.

8A crucial feature of this tort is the need for an acquittal; if the applicant has been convicted no action will lie, irrespective of the presence of evidence that such a conviction was obtained illegally. Quill9 notes that privileges afforded in the interest of public policy will not apply in malicious prosecution actions, nor will public prosecutors be immune from such actions. In the case of McIntyre v. Lewis10the applicant was assaulted by two Gardaí, arrested and brought to the garda station where he was informed that he was being prosecuted for assault. The applicant succeeded in his action for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment in the High Court. On appeal it was argued that he had not adequately proved that there was an absence of a “reasonable and probable cause” for bringing the assault charge. Hederman J. in the Supreme Court rejected this argument and approved the following charge of the trial judge: I have already shown you how closely false imprisonment and assault relate to each other in the nature of the action and what happened. But malicious prosecution has another element in it and that is invoking a purported authority and abusing it; using it where they have no right to be using it, abusing the authority of the courts for the purpose of bringing about a prosecution and the consequences of that. And that’s why that’s a completely different element and the onus there is on the plaintiff to show that if he is to get any damages under that heading, that in fact the Gardaí did abuse their position and they brought a prosecution against him for a completely wrongful motive and in the circumstances in which there was no reasonable cause to bring it at all. Hederman J. added that in this case the simple fact that had to be decided was who had committed the assault; once it was found that the Gardaí had in fact committed the assault there was no need for the plaintiff to go further and “prove a negative”: the absence of a reasonable and probable cause for bringing the charges. The Supreme Court upheld the findings in this case but reduced the award. In November 2007 a Donegal publican, Frank McBrearty, settled his action against the state for personal damages arising from malicious prosecution, wrongful imprisonment, defamation and wrongful arrest for €3 million, albeit without any admission of liability. Mr McBrearty was the victim of a police conspiracy to frame him for the murder of one Richie Barron; who had in fact died accidentally. Such a substantial award could encourage a greater number of malicious prosecution actions coming before the courts. In the absence of any direct case law, the Irish courts have been unclear as to the liability of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for malicious prosecution actions. In the case of JF v. DPP11, Hardiman J. noted obiter that in malicious prosecution cases the courts have taken a practical view of the tort to fit complainants within the definition of “prosecutors”. He stated as follows:

Because the Director of Public Prosecutions or, occasionally, another public official, has a monopoly of prosecutions on indictment in Ireland, the complainant in such a case never functions as the prosecutor. Nevertheless, the law of tort acts realistically in regarding the complainant as the institutor of criminal proceedings and I believe that he should be so regarded for the purpose of this litigation as well. As such institutor, his position is far more closely analogous to a plaintiff in civil proceedings than to a witness who just happened to be there. By setting the criminal law in motion he plainly forfeited a degree of privacy, although in many situations his identity will be protected from disclosure to the public at large. A person accusing another of an offence involving disgrace, loss of liberty, loss of reputation and professional oblivion, cannot expect to control the degree to which relevant information about him will be shared with the person whom he accuses. He is not merely the institutor of the proceedings: he is himself the object of the alleged offence. His veracity and accuracy is central both to the criminal proceedings and to the contention at the centre of the case against the applicant’s claim for judicial review.

It would appear, therefore, that as members of the Gardaí may be held liable for malicious prosecution along with individual complainants, it may be possible that a public prosecutor could be similarly found liable, provided there is sufficient evidence of malice. Developments in the relation to the duty of disclosure on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution will be relevant in this regard as it would be very difficult for a plaintiff to establish malice if they cannot get access to documents relating to the decision to prosecute. As the Irish courts have accepted that decisions of the DPP are only judicially reviewable in exceptional circumstances it is likely that any request for information surrounding such a decision would be considered with caution.

12NegligenceIn order to succeed in an action for negligence a plaintiff must show that they were owed a duty of care by the defendant arising from: the proximity of the parties; the foreseeability of the damage; and the absence of any compelling exemptions based on public policy. They must further show that such a duty was breached causing damage. In general the judiciary have been reluctant to accept that the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Gardaí, owe any duty of care to individuals. This reluctance stems from the public interest in the prosecution of crime and the public detriment which may ensue from attaching such a duty. The issue was discussed in the case of W. v. Ireland (No. 2)

13. The applicant in this case, claimed that the Attorney General breached his duty of care and/or his constitutional duty along with statutory duties owed by failing to process speedily the extradition of Father Brendan Smyth to face charges of sexual assault against the applicant. Costello P. rejected the existence of any such duty, making the following observations: Turning, then, to the facts of this case it seems to me that the denial of a right of claim for damages for negligence on the grounds of public policy arises from the functions which the Attorney General is called upon to perform in the public interest and the consequences for his ability properly to perform them, should the alleged duty exist. By conferring an important role on him in the extradition process, the Oireachtas has involved him in a significant way in ensuring that proper compliance with the State’s international obligations in the field of extradition is achieved. The Act requires him to weigh the information made available to him relating both to the intention to prosecute the person named in the warrant, and also the evidence on which the intention to prosecute is based, and should the information he obtains not be sufficient, he is required to request further information. If in carrying out this function, he is also under a duty of care to the victim of the crime referred to in the warrant not to delay, there is a risk, which I do not think it is in the public interest he should be asked to run, that a conflict may arise between the proper exercise of his public function and the common law duty of care to the victim which might result in an improper exercise of his statutory functions.

There are further compelling reasons why, in the public interest, the duty claimed by the plaintiff in this action should not be allowed. If a duty under the Act of 1965 exists it must logically follow (a) that the Attorney General would be under a similar duty in respect of any prosecutorial functions conferred on him by s. 5 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974 and (b) that in exercising his prosecutorial functions under that Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions would owe a like duty to all victims of crimes in the cases in which he is considering the institution of prosecution. Because of the inhibiting effect on the proper exercise by the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions of their prosecutorial functions, it would be contrary to the public interest that a duty of care at common law be imposed on them. So to conclude is not to submit to a “flood gates” argument of doubtful validity, it is to accept the logical consequences, should the duty of care at common law be imposed in the execution by the Attorney General of his functions under the Act of 1965. Presumably similar policy considerations would apply to individuals suspected or accused of criminal behaviour. However in light of the European Court of Human Rights decision of Osman v. UK14 such a public policy exclusion may be regarded as disproportionate. In this case the Court found that an exclusionary rule that prohibited actions against the police by the victims of crime for negligent investigation on the grounds of public policy was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. The Irish Supreme Court displayed a greater willingness to review the workings of the DPP’s Office in the case of Eviston v. DPP15. In this case the Supreme Court held that the decision to prosecute the applicant, where she had been previously been informed that she would not be so prosecuted, was a breach of fair procedures. In the circumstances the Court found that the applicant’s prosecution could not continue. The approach in Eviston has remained exceptional and so would seem not to be indicative of a more watchful role on the part of the judiciary. In the case of J.M v. DPP16McCarthy J. in the High Court outlined that the case of Eviston itself articulated a rule that the Director is entitled to review his decision and that all citizens are now deemed to have knowledge of the existence of this rule. As a result the case before him could be distinguished from that of Eviston, with the effect that the applicant was not entitled to and order of prohibition. It should be noted that the question of duty of care in the sphere of criminal investigations has arisen in the Irish courts. Mr James Livingstone claimed that the Gardaí were guilty of negligence and breach of duty in their management of the investigation into the murder of his wife. He alleged that the Gardaí had an irrational fixation that he was the killer which caused him to be “pilloried” as a murderer causing him great damage. However as the matter was settled, with no admission of liability, an opportunity to examine the application of the tort of negligence to the criminal process was missed. In light of the above developments it remains an open question whether a duty of care to those accused or suspected of crime will be recognised at some future date. Other Applicable Torts

It should be noted that a broad range of torts have been argued in actions where individuals seek damages for acts committed during criminal investigations. In addition to the torts of malicious prosecution and negligence, applicants have claimed that they have been victims of defamation, false imprisonment and trespass to goods. As mentioned above, the applicant in McIntyre v. Lewis was awarded damages for false imprisonment against the Gardaí who assaulted and then arrested him. In Dowman v. Ireland17the State was held vicariously liable in an action for false imprisonment when the Gardaí unlawfully arrested the plaintiff.As the Director of Public Prosecution is independent of the Gardaí and exercises no control over their actions, it would be unlikely that prosecutors could be held liable for such false imprisonment. It would seem unlikely that an action for defamation could lie against the DPP by virtue of the fact that under Irish defamation law, an absolute privilege attaches to all statements which are made in the course of the administration of justice and a qualified privilege attaches to actions committed or statements uttered under legal duty. Therefore, in the absence of malice it would seem that statements emanating from the Office would be privileged and therefore immune from suit. The tort of trespass to goods may also be claimed where an individual has been deprived of their property in the course of criminal investigation. However, such an action has a limited prospect of success due to the fact that such acts will not be tortuous where they have been committed with lawful authority. Irish criminal law allows extensive powers of search and seizure, which makes success in such a claim unlikely where the investigation of a crime is concerned.

In the case of Jennings v. Quinn18O’Keefe J. recognised the public interest in allowing the Gardaí a wide power of seizure in relation to goods that may have evidential value in support of criminal charges or which may be stolen property. However, should an individual successfully claim that the seizure was committed without lawful authority an action against the Gardaí may lie. Civil Action for Breach of Constitutional LawFinally, it has been argued that a right to damages should arise based on the concept of a tort of breach of constitutional rights. Such an argument stems from the judgment of Walsh J. in Byrne where he stated: Where the people by the Constitution create rights against the State or impose duties upon the State, a remedy to enforce these must be deemed to be also available. Following on from this in the case of Meskell v. CIÉ19 Walsh J. stated that: It has been said on a number of occasions in this Court…that a right guaranteed by the Constitution or granted by the Constitution can be protected by action or enforced by action even though such action may not fit into any of the ordinary forms of action in either common law or equity and that the constitutional right carries within it its own right to a remedy or for the enforcement of it. Therefore, if a person has suffered damage by virtue of a breach of a constitutional right or the infringement of a constitutional right, that person is entitled to seek redress against the person or persons who have infringed that right. It was feared that such a broad statement would lead distinct torts to be subsumed into this general action, however in practice this did not occur. In the case of W v. Ireland (No.2), discussed above, Costello J. held that such an action for damages would only arise where existing statutory or common law did not already provide a remedy for the breach in question. Costello J. added that a failure of the action at common law would not, of itself, indicate that the plaintiff’s constitutional rights are not adequately protected. Hogan and Whyte have observed: …

[T]he courts have tended to take the view that the law of tort generally provides adequate protection for personal rights and that it is only in those cases where common law remedies are inadequate or non-existent that an action based directly on the Constitution would arise.20The right to sue for damages for a breach of a constitutional right is not confined to action against the State or state agents, but has been found to exist against a private individual or entity.21It would seem that provided the Irish judiciary exercise the caution demonstrated in the W case by refusing to extend the action more generally, that no action would lie in the circumstances outlined in the questionnaire. This is due to the fact that an individual who has been falsely accused, detained, prosecuted or deprived of their property would be covered under defamation, habeas corpus, malicious prosecution and trespass on property respectively.


In summary, the crucial social function provided by the DPP and the Gardaí has made the Irish Courts reluctant to impose any civil liability on them; fearing that such an imposition would hamper the effective operation of the criminal justice system. There may be extreme cases where misconduct makes it imperative that a civil remedy be afforded such as the McIntyre or Shortt or McBrearty cases. However, the courts are likely to avoid any broad statements of duty; limiting such actions to cases with clear evidence of malicious motives. As a result of recent high profile settlements it is likely that a greater number of cases will be taken against the Gardaí in the future; whether such actions will extend to prosecutors remains to be seen.

1937 Irish Constitution

As we now know based on my last 2 articles, the ’37 constitution is Irelands second constitution, the common rhetoric about the introduction of a new constitution is that the old was ” unworkable” “it contained an oath of allegiance to the crown” “that constitution was from the Brits whereas the 37 constitution was independence” We are aware that nothing the Free State / Republic did was unilateral because we’ve examined the prior existing British permission via its laws. In fact a copy of the constitution was sent by deVelera to George V for his approval. The constitution & court record is the evidence of how we would conduct ourselves within our limited independence from Britain. It is an indictment of the current “Absolute Ruler” mindset of the Irish Government.

In the media at the moment, there is a hairdresser who was arrested for opening her hair salon in Balbriggan, 2 have-a-go hero’s have involved themselves. They instructed her to put up a notice claiming that under article 41.1.1 her personal rights trump any positive law, they sound confident in their expression of this, their confidence gave them credibility obviously because that unfortunate lady followed their lead and was promptly arrested. In an interview they aired on the internet, they claim the gardai did not understand the constitution, as evidence of the assertion Byrne produced a McGill book on the subject and treated listeners to his interpretation of the constitution. Byrnes confidence for this is his 12 years of experience repeating this empty rhetoric to anyone who would listen and in all cases, people who took his advice were promptly arrested, you’d imagine he might take the hint. The evidence of rights, or lack thereof will be found in the court record, they will set precedent & will be referred to in order to settle other cases. We will try to avoid the pitfall that Gilroy & Byrne have fallen into, we won’t rely on our own rhetoric for interpretation, we’ll look for experts. While i didn’t get to read the notice posted in the hair salon i’m fairly confident that it included a “Removal of implied right of access” this is one of the favorites of the dynamic duo yet Gardai, Sheriffs & judges frequently overlook this right, to our hero’s incredulity. Laughingly the phrase “Implied rights” will only shine a bright light on the Dynamic duo’s logic & competence later.

The 2 constitutions side by side

If we compare the 1922 constitution to the 1937 constitution, we’ll notice the latter version is a little leaner, a little more streamlined, unlike the Government who enforces it, When i use the term government i am always referring to all 3 of its branches. On closer inspection some articles, constitutionally guaranteed rights have vanished, an article prohibiting the setting up of “Extraordinary courts” (such as our “special” criminal court & what about those fast track jurisdictions created to facilitate bankers & relieve citizens of homes) the right to a fair trial, habeas corpus, right to free expression, assembly & association, all the elements of what we know as a civil society, restraint on government & deterrent to tyranny. whereas in the 37 constitution some of these principles are repeated but now come with disclaimers, within legal circles these are refereed to as implied rights. Irish citizens bound by the 37 constitution have implied rights, they do not have absolute, court enforceable rights. No sooner had the new constitution been created and the state had created internment & “Extraordinary courts. To return to our dynamic duo and their notice of removal of implied rights, they should realise how easily an implied right can be removed, arbitrarily is the answer. Article 6 claims we have a right to designate “Rulers”, that all sounds a bit absolute doesn’t it? a bit authoritative? you could be forgiven if you thought I had mixed these two up, but that’s not the case. A so called Irish government introduced a constitution that instead of bringing independence as advertised, it introduced absolute servitude. Ireland is a member of the UN & EU right? surely i’m mistaken about the states attitude to its own citizens? Despite Ireland being a signatory of both the UN & EU charters on Human rights, despite the fact we send troops to the middle east to uphold the charter there, the state claims that those charters are unconstitutional for Irish citizens, Despite the fact that the State is co-guarantor of the human rights of citizens in the North under the Good Friday Agreement it deny’s them to its own citizens. Ireland pays fines every year to the EU for it breaches of the European Charter of Human Rights.

“Interestingly, the Irish Constitution is not necessarily compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 3 (freedom from torture/inhumane treatment) and Article 4 (freedom from slavery) are deemed to be absolute rights. However, under the Irish Constitution, as seen in ***Ryan v AG, no rights are absolute. It has been established that in the Irish Constitution, no rights are absolute.”

The Budapest paper

We don’t want to make the same mistake as our dynamic duo did so let’s check in with an expert. The Budapest paper was written by a legal researcher attached to the DPP’s office in response to a questionnaire from Hungary, who at the time was seeking accession to the EU.

The Irish legal system is made up from a combination of common law, statute
law and constitutional law. The common law system relies on the doctrine of
precedent, with a strong focus on previously decided case law. Irish law is
subservient to a written Constitution, which guarantees the rights and
freedoms of Irish citizens, among others. Ireland is also a party to the
European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated into Irish law
by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. However the
Convention was incorporated at a sub constitutional level: legislation cannot
be struck down by the courts simply by virtue of it being incompatible with the
Convention and compensation for any violations of Convention rights will not
be paid as of right but on an ex gratia basis. In order to evaluate the liability
of public prosecutors in Ireland one must consider the nature of the Office
and its role in the Irish criminal justice system.

ok let’s focus on this sentence, i’m sure your Latin is probably as bad as mine and the rest of the paragraph is pretty self explanatory I think “compensation for any violations of Convention rights will not be paid as of right but on an ex gratia basis.” Ex gratia is Latin for “by favour”, and is most often used in a legal context. When something has been done ex gratia, it has been done voluntarily, out of kind or grace. In law, an ex gratia payment is a payment made without the giver recognising any liability or legal obligation. by this explanation we can see that this is what we call “Hush money” it creates no precedent and contradicts any notion that a right had been vindicated or even existed, The researcher goes on to explain the legal structure and gives several examples of different case scenario’s , you can find the full paper here https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2019/03/Budapest_Paper_-_Helen_Whately_06052010.pdf

“In summary, the crucial social function provided by the DPP and the Gardaí
has made the Irish Courts reluctant to impose any civil liability on them;
fearing that such an imposition would hamper the effective operation of the
criminal justice system. There may be extreme cases where misconduct
makes it imperative that a civil remedy be afforded such as the McIntyre or
Shortt or McBrearty cases. However, the courts are likely to avoid any broad
statements of duty; limiting such actions to cases with clear evidence of
malicious motives. As a result of recent high profile settlements it is likely that
a greater number of cases will be taken against the Gardaí in the future;
whether such actions will extend to prosecutors remains to be seen.

So in summary you have no rights recognised by the courts because there are fears that citizens having basic human rights would inhibit the states function, there is no duty to you, legally you are of no consequence to the court. People who have no rights cannot be legally wronged, This sentiment runs through all operations of government.

  1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
    This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function. (what this actually say is all are equal before the law unless we arbitrarily decide they are not) What exactly is the states function? what is our relationship with the state legally? Slavery ? A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. The state has been defined as a juristic person by the supreme court so unfortunately this definition fits. The Law Society boasts that it is their intention to legislate for every aspect of the citizens life and why wouldn’t they, solicitors are not held to the same justice system, If you’re a fruit & veg importer who diddles Revenue, you’ll get a summary conviction and nine years for your trouble, if you are a solicitor who diddles Revenue, you’ll be ignored by the DPP and face a law society tribunal, receiving only a slap on the wrist.

By now it should be clear to you who wrote our current constitution & why, it was not written for you, it was written to absolutely control you. The state is predominantly a group of legacy institutions we inherited. Great lengths have been gone to, to mislead you, to confuse you and you should be asking WHY? Are these the actions of a fledgling Republic that had just freed itself from the cosh of British Imperialism, was this the best we could do for ourselves or was there in fact a counter revolution by the old establishment, enshrining old Victorian mindsets & imperial habits. Is this all the fault of a group of legacy institutions we inherited as part of the treaty? They used veils of “Independence” and “Republicanism” in order to conceal their slight of hand. What is also very telling is how morally bankrupt & utterly bought out our academics and press must be if you are hearing this for the first time from me.

What should we do? I’ll have some suggestions for readers to consider in my next installment.

Evolution of the Free State


If You read my last article (Cheerio chaps) well i’m not sure how you feel about its contents, If i reflect on the time i was digging this stuff up, I remember being completely dumbfounded, although I was never truly aware of how much Irish history was a part of my personal identity up to that point, that became very evident to me. The hardest part for me was overcoming my pre held beliefs.If you’re still reading i guess the best thing for us to do is begin.

Ireland did not militarily defeat Britain in the war of independence and although the thought that we did used to make my blood run green and my hair stand on end, it’s just not true. Britain was the worlds largest super power at that time. not only militarily but financially, it had huge influence around the globe, The declaration of independence was not recognised by any other nation, with the exception of Russia who had just undergone Bolshevik revolution, cyka blyat!. The Irish delegation were summoned to London under the threat of annihilation and forced to sign a British proposal. Griffith & Collins had very little to trade in these so called Treaty negotiations. The Free State’s creation was a direct result of the 1921 Treaty(treaty text available on the page) included in the text of the treaty was the 1920 Government of Ireland Act (UK).It was in no way an independent state, it wasn’t created by the people for the people, it was Home Rule, the new state was born from the British statute book.

The Players

Something rarely discussed in Irish History or Politics, at the time of the treaty there were 2 distinct groupings of Irish people, there were those who had acted for the British administration in Ireland and those who had acted against it, I doubt many civil servants or those attending trinity suffered any hunger in the 1840’s, they lived in Georgian houses in leafy suburbs, they attended university, they took up posts in the civil services or the courts. These were the people who had administered Ireland through the 1800’s, It’ would have been natural that these people would have more in common with London counterparts than tenant farmers in Kerry. A book I read titled “The civil service and the revolution 1912 -1938,shaking the bloodstained hand of Mr. Collins (not a big admirer of Collins then lol) lays out how a well educated group of people, bound together by self interest, fear of the natives & experience, began a type of counter revolution to insulate themselves, it culminates in the establishment of the 1937 constitution. I will have a lot to say about the constitution in my next installment. The Author begins…… “This book began as research into two contradictory accounts of the process by which an Irish State replaced the British State in Ireland.” I had no idea there were contradictory accounts, I had paid attention in History class, they kept that quite for a century? he quotes Kevin O’Higgins account of the formation of the state

there was no State and no organized forces. The Provisional Government was
simply eight young men in the City Hall standing amidst the ruins of one administration with the foundations of another not yet laid, and with wild men screaming through the keyhole. No police force was functioning through the country, no
system of justice was operating, the wheels of administration hung idle battered
out of recognition by the clash of rival jurisdictions.

and as a contradictory statement he quotes Joseph Brennan a senior civil servant who had served in the British administration of Ireland

The passing of the State services into the control of a native Government, however
revolutionary it may have been as a step in the political development of the
nation, entailed, broadly speaking, no immediate disturbance of any fundamental kind in the daily work of the average Civil Servant. Under changed masters the
main tasks of administration continued to be performed by the same staffs on the
same general line of organisation and procedure.

So for the civil service it was business as usual, they’d had a century of running Ireland like a penal colony on behalf of the British and i guess they just carried on doing what they knew best! Government would have a master & servant approach, Nothing would essentially change.

the Government of Ireland in 1922 consisted of a rag tag army made up of volunteers who’d been turned against their own brothers all of whom no doubt suffering PTSD, another group of PTSD sufferers in the Dail with no clue about how a government works, on the other side were the actual working parts of government, the civil service & the judiciary staffed by the aforementioned group of Irish people, it’s not hard to see how this is gonna play out…….. remember the great oil giveaway, remember the royal visit without any consultation, remember paying for your kids to emigrate after the euro famine of 2008, remember no consultation or legal recourse over the bailout, remember the public being barred from participating in the states centenary celebration of the rebellion, remember the Irish government sent the Wolfe Tones “come out you black & Tans” to No1 because they tried to commemorate the tans & RIC. remember the endless scandals overlapping because there was no accountability???????This was not a result of incompetence, it’s the nature of the beast, Currently the defence forces are complaining that they can’t function due to the civil service smothering them, they claim the civil service inserted itself into the rank structure, the fact is it has always been like this, this was the civil services distrust of what was left of the volunteers, recent EU & UN obligations have just brought them to light There’s little doubt that deVelera played a huge part, he oversaw the creation of our phoney little republic, many far more informed people than me have written about him, it would be hubris to try but there was a man who acted in some contradictory ways, we may judge him by his actions in the coming articles.

The Setting

The free state had acquired dominion status in the Empire, somewhat of a demotion when you consider Ireland had been made a full partner in 1801 (Act of Union) but we know how that worked out……… the events of the war of independence sent shockwaves through the Empire, in 1926 the imperial conference, attended by 5 prominent Irish political figures & an entourage of civil servants, most notable was a man named John Hearne, a civil servant who had served before the handover, he is significant because he is ultimately credited with advising & writing the ’37 constitution not deVelera. The imperial conference was significant because it brought about the Balfour declaration, the balfour declaration was a softening of the grip on the Empire, Britain had given Ireland the illusion of some form of independence and to deter future problems in its other colony’s it seems like it was a logical move from their perspective to roll it out as policy.

1931 Act of Westminster

This act was just a slightly modified version of the treaty already granted to the Free State, significantly the act allowed for the Oath to be dropped which had been a bone of contention, while the act was not formally adopted in the free state the permission had already been granted in the act. The British found the oath removal to be “morally objectionable but legally permitted by the Statute of Westminster.”. The removal of the Oath was not a unilateral action on the part of the state, it did not signify some next level of independence, the natives were being led up a path by a pied piper.

Republic of Ireland Act 1948

There are 2 legal requirements for a crime “Mens Rea and Actus Reus” (unless you’re in an Irish court) they are the intention & the act itself, From my perspective, this act of the Dail is the Mens Rea, the intention to deceive. the act states

1.—The Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936 (No. 58 of 1936), is hereby repealed.
2.—It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.
3.—The President, on the authority and on the advice of the Government, may exercise the executive power or any executive function of the State in or in connection with its external relations.
4.—This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Government may by order appoint.
5.—This Act may be cited as The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948.

I don’t know if you know anything about legal language but does the sentence seem a little convoluted to you? It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland. why not just declare Ireland a republic? a description is subjective and not a statement of objective fact, it is an opinion, In the following year the Irish act was clarified for the international community by the Brits,

Ireland Act 1949(UK)

2, Republic of Ireland not a foreign country.

(1)It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, and references in any Act of Parliament, other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act

If you are like me you’re probably hung up on the same words “Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law” It appears it was all just window dressing, 17th century Britain still exists & functions on its royal charters, Titled British lords & their estates frequently pop up in the media, the councils created to manage their estates are more powerful than ever. If there’s a snag in the HSE or dept. of education, it’s probably because a hospital or university invoked its royal charter to ward off unwanted legislation, On top of that we have all the institutions created as a result of the Act of Union, the civil service, kings inns, the law society, these institutions control & staff our permanent government, they don’t care what way you vote, they & their institutions are insulated under the constitution they created for themselves, they made up some bunk about about independence & republics so we’d all play along in their penal island legal fantasy.

Final text of the Articles 1921 Treaty

Great Britain and Ireland as signed.

London, 6 December 1921

1. Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Ireland and an Executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State.
2. Subject to the provisions hereinafter set out the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada, and the law, practice and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown or the representative of the Crown and of the Imperial Parliament to the Dominion of Canada shall govern their relationship to the Irish Free State.
3. The representative of the Crown in Ireland shall be appointed in like manner as the Governor-General of Canada and in accordance with the practice observed in the making of such appointments.
4. The oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form:- I ￿￿. do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V., his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.
5. The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof and towards the payment of War Pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claim on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire
6. Until an arrangement has been made between the British and Irish Governments whereby the Irish Free State undertakes her own coastal defence, the defence by sea of Great Britain and Ireland shall be undertaken by His Majesty’s Imperial Forces, but this shall not prevent the construction or maintenance by the Government of the Irish Free State of such vessels as are necessary for the protection of the Revenue or the Fisheries. The foregoing provisions of this article shall be reviewed at a conference of Representatives of the British and Irish governments, to be held at the expiration of five years from the date hereof with a view to the undertaking by Ireland of a share in her own coastal defence.
7. The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty’s Imperial Forces
(a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto, or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State; and
(b) In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid.
8. With a view to securing the observance of the principle of international limitation of armaments, if the Government of the Irish Free State establishes and maintains a military defence force, the establishments thereof shall not exceed in size such proportion of the military establishments maintained in Great Britain as that which the population of Ireland bears to the population of Great Britain.
9. The ports of Great Britain and the Irish Free State shall be freely open to the ships of the other country on payment of the customary port and other dues.
10. The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other Public Servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance hereof. Provided that this agreement shall not apply to members of the Auxiliary Police Force or to persons recruited in Great Britain for the Royal Irish Constabulary during the two years next preceding the date hereof. The British Government will assume responsibility for such compensation or pensions as may be payable to any of these excepted persons.
11. Until the expiration of one month from the passing of the Act of Parliament for the ratification of this instrument, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall not be exercisable as respects Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, shall, so far as they relate to Northern Ireland, remain of full force and effect, and no election shall be held for the return of members to serve in the Parliament of the Irish Free State for constituencies in Northern Ireland, unless a resolution is passed by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in favour of the holding of such elections before the end of the said month.
12. If before the expiration of the said month, an address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, (including those relating to the Council of Ireland) shall so far as they relate to Northern Ireland, continue to be of full force and effect, and this instrument shall have effect subject to the necessary modifications. Provided that if such an address is so presented a Commission consisting of three persons, one to be appointed by the Government of the Irish Free State, one to be appointed by the Government of Northern Ireland, and one who shall be Chairman to be appointed by the British Government shall determine in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland, and for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of this instrument, the boundary of Northern Ireland shall be such as may be determined by such Commission.
13. For the purpose of the last foregoing article, the powers of the Parliament of Southern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to elect members of the Council of Ireland shall after the Parliament of the Irish Free State is constituted be exercised by that Parliament.
14. After the expiration of the said month, if no such address as is mentioned in Article 12 hereof is presented, the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland shall continue to exercise as respects Northern Ireland the powers conferred on them by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, but the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall in Northern Ireland have in relation to matters in respect of which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has not power to make laws under the Act (including matters which under the said Act are within the jurisdiction of the Council of Ireland) the same powers as in the rest of Ireland, subject to such other provisions as may be agreed in manner hereinafter appearing.
15. At any time after the date hereof the Government of Northern Ireland and the provisional Government of Southern Ireland hereinafter constituted may meet for the purpose of discussing the provisions subject to which the last foregoing Article is to operate in the event of no such address as is therein mentioned being presented and those provisions may include:-
(a) Safeguards with regard to patronage in Northern Ireland.
(b) Safeguards with regard to the collection of revenue in Northern Ireland.
(c) Safeguards with regard to import and export duties affecting the trade or industry of Northern Ireland.
(d) Safeguards for minorities in Northern Ireland.
(e) The settlement of the financial relations between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State.
(f) The establishment and powers of a local militia in Northern Ireland and the relation of the Defence Forces of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland respectively, and if at any such meeting provisions are agreed to, the same shall have effect as if they were included amongst the provisions subject to which the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State are to be exercisable in Northern Ireland under Article 14 hereof. 16. Neither the Parliament of the Irish Free State nor the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall make any law so as either directly or indirectly to endow any religion or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof or give any preference or impose any disability on account of religious belief or religious status or affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at the school or make any discrimination as respects State aid between schools under the management of different religious denominations or divert from any religious denomination or any educational institution any of its property except for public utility purposes and on payment of compensation.
17. By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a provisional Government, and the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such provisional Government the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that every member of such provisional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof.
18. This instrument shall be submitted forthwith by His Majesty’s Government for the approval of Parliament and by the Irish signatories to a meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and if approved shall be ratified by the necessary legislation.

On behalf of the British Delegation,On behalf of the Irish Delegation.
D. Lloyd George.Art Ó Griobhtha.
Austen Chamberlain.Micheál Ó Coileain.
Birkenhead.Riobárd Bartún
Winston S. Churchill.E. S. Ó Dugain.
L. Worthington-Evans.Seórsa Ghabháin Uí Dhubhthaigh
Hamar Greenwood. 
Gordon Hewart. 
6th December, 1921. 

1. The following are the specific facilities required:- Dockyard Port at Berehaven.
(a) Admiralty property and rights to be retained as at the date hereof. Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties. Queenstown.
(b) Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties. Certain mooring buoys to be retained for use of His Majesty’s ships. Belfast Lough.
(c) Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties. Lough Swilly.
(d) Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties. AVIATION.
(e) Facilities in the neighbourhood of the above ports for coastal defence by air. OIL FUEL STORAGE.
(f) Haulbowline [and] Rathmullen[:] To be offered for sale to commercial companies under guarantee that purchasers shall maintain a certain minimum stock for Admiralty purposes.
2. A Convention shall be made between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State to give effect to the following conditions :-
(a) That submarine cables shall not be landed or wireless stations for communication with places outside Ireland be established except by agreement with the British Government; that the existing cable landing rights and wireless concessions shall not be withdrawn except by agreement with the British Government; and that the British Government shall be entitled to land additional submarine cables or establish additional wireless stations for communication with places outside Ireland.
(b) That lighthouses, buoys, beacons, and any navigational marks or navigational aids shall be maintained by the Government of the Irish Free State as at the date hereof and shall not be removed or added to except by agreement with the British Government.
(c) That war signal stations shall be closed down and left in charge of care and maintenance parties, the Government of the Irish Free State being offered the option of taking them over and working them for commercial purposes subject to Admiralty inspection, and guaranteeing the upkeep of existing telegraphic communication therewith.
3. A Convention shall be made between the same Governments for the regulation of Civil Communication by Air.

Cheerio Chaps

Irish history is a tricky subject in Ireland, so much so that for all intents & purposes it has been removed from the secondary school syllabus, in fact if I were to recite what I learned in school to a class of history students in Trinity today, they might laugh & accuse me of being a history revisionist, a terrorist sympathiser. Irish history is being rewritten but not by me! The old narrative, while it served its purpose, no longer suits the modern states image of itself. It was only after a brush with the Irish legal system in 2013 that I began putting the pieces of the puzzle together for myself, This page serves as my dump, I’m relieving myself of its weight by dumping the findings of my investigation onto you, If you choose to read on.

Eire leaves the Empire is the title of the above 1949 newsreel but did the empire leave Ireland? An article recently appeared in the Journal (8 December 2020) which claimed

Council confirms Lord Iveagh has repossessed historic Iveagh Markets in Dublin DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL has confirmed that the historic Iveagh Markets in Dublin 8 have been repossessed by Lord Iveagh.  “The long-running saga over the future of the redbrick market building on Francis Street has taken a new twist after the Council was informed today that Lord Iveagh – who is a descendant of Edward Guinness, 1st Earl of Iveagh – had invoked the ‘Reverter’ clause contained in the original Deed of Conveyance from 1906. “


Hang on a second, WTF is an English Lord/Absentee Landlord still doing in Ireland in the 21st century? or at least I hope that was your reaction, The truth is you will find a plethora of evidence that the British titled family’s who laid claim to the majority of this island remained long after the claims of independence, right up to current day. I grew up knowing that if someone wanted to hold a gig in Slane Castle, they had to clear it with the English lord. I knew that another British lord occupied Lambay island but further discussion or thought about this was suppressed by my own incredulity, if there were contradictions then surely my peers would have figured this out long ago, the press would have been all over it, Growing up when i did, the age of information & the internet was still a long way off, without this resource I could never have put the puzzle together for myself and neither could they, You may be wondering why your elected representatives in Dublin City Council have not brought this to your attention, I don’t know for sure but my current opinion is that it is a mixture of ignorance and/or vested interest. Crooked politicians won’t surprise anyone reading this so lets examine the institution. Dublin City Council, formerly Dublin Corporation was not created “by the people, for the people”, I’m assured by their Law agent that the Council was created in 1539 by Henry VIII’s royal charter & letters patent. It was created as a type of property management firm on behalf of those titled absentee lords, It is a law unto itself by virtue of its original charter. If the Ringsend incinerator fiasco taught us anything it is that the council is absolutely controlled by a city manager and not those elected to the council. Regardless of party affiliation we would have to question the motives/ competence of those seeking election the next time they appear at your doorstep. Are profits made by the council funnelled back to absentee British landlords? In the 21st century would any of these titles or charters hold any weight under international law? Recently the state announced it was to invest €100 million in Rosslare to cope with the increased port traffic as a result of Brexit, However early reporting suggests that the plan ran into a snag, it’s owned by another British absentee landlord, lets see what golden nuggets of information fall from this one.

It appears i’m not the only sniffer dog on this trail, i recently met a man from Donegal who has unearthed crown claim regarding Lough Foyle, below is a link to an article he wrote on the subject. I would really love to hear from others who have also turned up evidence.