DOCSLIB.ORG

Hibernian Law Journal *56 Fair Referendum Campaigns in the Light of Recent Court Decisions Introduction Intervention of the Cour

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hibernian Law Journal *56 Fair Referendum Campaigns in the Light of Recent Court Decisions Introduction Intervention of the Cour Page1 Hibernian Law Journal 2015, 14(1), 56-74 Hibernian Law Journal 2015 *56 Fair referendum campaigns in the light of recent Court decisions PATRICIA McKENNA Subject: Electoral process. Other related subjects: Constitutional law Keywords: Campaign expenditure; Constitutionality; Ireland; Referendums; Introduction The Supreme Court decision in McKenna v An Taoiseach (No. 2)1 has long been a bone of contention within the Irish political establishment. This case ruled that the use of public money by the Government to support one side in a referendum was unconstitutional. Despite frequent calls for this decision to be revisited, 2 the principles established in McKenna have been reaffirmed in McCrystal v The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. 3 In that case, the Supreme Court made it clear that there should be a strict interpretation of the McKenna principles with regard to publicly funded information. The court also held that it is possible for the Government to breach the McKenna principles without intending to do so. 4 This has reopened the debate on Government involvement in the constitutional referendum process and its provision of publicly funded information during the campaign. This article will first explore some of the main issues surrounding the McKenna principles, as clarified by McCrystal. It will attempt to justify the reasoning behind these decisions and address some public criticisms of the decisions, with a focus on the constitutional role of Government in relation to referendums. Finally, some options for striking the balance between ensuring fairness and equality as against voters' access to accurate information on referendums will be canvassed. In conclusion, it will be argued that expanding the mandate of the Referendum Commission is the best way forward. Intervention of the Courts The applicant in McKenna objected to the Government's use of public funds to campaign exclusively in support of a proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the *57 Government to use public monies to fund a campaign aimed at persuading voters to vote in a particular way in a referendum. Hamilton CJ held: The use by the Government of public funds to fund a campaign designed to influence the voters in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote is an interference with the democratic process and the constitutional process for the amendment of the Constitution and infringes the concept of equality which is fundamental to the democratic nature of the State.5 It is submitted that the logic of the McKenna judgment turns on the fact that, according to Article 47.1, it is the people alone who can change the Constitution. The process of making that decision must be democratic and meaningful. The Supreme Court interpreted the equality provision in Article 40.1 of the Constitution as one that extends to equal treatment of both sides in a referendum campaign. It held that publicly funding one side had the effect of putting the voting rights of those citizens in favour of the Page2 amendment above the voting rights of those citizens opposed to it.6 Such action also represented an infringement of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the constitutional right to a democratic process in referenda. 7 A contrasting approach to a similar question was seen in McKenna v An Taoiseach (No. 1),8 where the applicant unsuccessfully sought an inter-locutory injunction to prevent the use of public funds by Government to urge a yes vote in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty referendum. In that case Costello J took the view that the complaint regarding the Government's use of public funds was one of political misconduct which was non-justiciable. He rejected the contention that any constitutional wrong was involved in the Government using public money in this way. 9 He held that should the Government decide that something was in the national interest, then “it would be improper for the courts to express any view on such a decision”. 10 Costello J's decision displayed significant judicial deference towards the Oireachtas. In McKenna Hamilton CJ held that the decisions of Costello and Keane JJ “were based on the concept of the separation of powers which is fundamental to all of the provisions of the Constitution”11 and that this meant that the court could not interfere in the exercise by Government of its executive functions. However Hamilton CJ pointed out that in Crotty v An Taoiseach 12 Walsh J held: *58 [i]t is not within the competence of the Government, or indeed the Oireachtas to free themselves from the constraints of the Constitution … They are both creatures of the Constitution and are not empowered to act free from the restraints of the Constitution. To the judicial organ of Government alone is given the power conclusively to decide if there has been a breach of constitutional restraints.13 Hamilton CJ held that the courts could only interfere in the exercise of executive functions if “the circumstances are such as to amount to a clear disregard by the Government of the powers and duties conferred on it by the Constitution” 14 and that following Crotty, the court had to ascertain whether the Government's action in this instance was “within its permitted areas of activity and function.” 15 He held that Articles 46 and 47 of the Constitution did not provide Government with a role in the conduct of the referendum. Thus he held that the use of public funds to secure a yes vote “was not an action in pursuance of the executive power of the State”, 16 and that even if it were, it would still be subject to examination and review by the court. 17 There has been some criticism of the use of the clear disregard test in this case, especially in the light of more recent decisions such as TD v Minister for Education.18 In that case Murray J stated that in his view “clear disregard” can only be understood to mean a conscious and deliberate decision by an organ of state to act in breach of its constitutional obligations. 19 Professor Doyle points out that since the executive was acting with the endorsement of the High Court decision in McKenna (No. 1) it is hard to say that it consciously and deliberately acted in bad faith. 20 In the run-up to the Children's Referendum in 2012 the Government allocated €1.1 million to fund a booklet, website and advertisement campaign to provide information on the referendum and to encourage people to vote. In McCrystal the applicant brought proceedings claiming that the information being disseminated to voters was not fair, impartial or neutral and was in fact designed to encourage a yes vote, thus breaching the principles established in McKenna. The Supreme Court held that the information failed the test of being fair, equal, impartial or neutral.21 *59 Must a Constitutional Breach be Deliberate and Conscious? In Boland v An Taoiseach,22 O'Keeffe J implied that the State's actions were not “consciously” 23 intended to breach the Constitution, and that this lack of conscious intent excused any unconstitutional State actions. Fitzgerald CJ adopted a similar position holding that the court may intervene where the executive displayed clear disregard for the Constitution. 24 This reasoning poses a serious question: should the fact that the Government is ignorant of a Constitutional breach be relevant to the courts' ability to intervene? If the State can convince the court of its ignorance then in such instances, all its actions would be free from judicial scrutiny or constitutional constraints. Page3 The question of whether or not a constitutional breach by Government must be deliberate and conscious was brought to the fore in McCrystal. In that case the Government argued that it had at all times endeavored to comply with the McKenna decision. Denham CJ pointed out in McCrystal that the intention of the Government to comply with the court's decision was not being challenged by the plaintiff.25 Accordingly she concluded that “in all circumstances of this case, as have appeared before the court, I am satisfied that the respondents acted in a bona fide manner.” 26 Indeed, Murray J went so far as to say, “the intention of the disseminator of the information is not determinative of the outcome of such scrutiny.” 27 When considering if the information at issue in McCrystal could be considered impartial O'Donnell J dismissed the assertion that simply refraining from making a positive exhortation to vote in a particular way was sufficient. O'Donnell J pointed out that the core of the defendant's case seemed to turn on an insistence that the material published by the Government did not offend the McKenna principles because it did not specifically call for a yes vote.28 This assertion was based on the fact that in McKenna Hamilton CJ had referred to the necessity of establishing “clear disregard”. 29 O'Donnell J held that any analysis of McKenna could not be understood in a narrow sense but rather involved the application of the broad principles of fairness and equality derived from the Constitution. To contend that the judgment asserts a right on the part of the Government to make information available, and merely prohibits blatant or egregious acts of direct advocacy, is an unduly narrow *60 approach to that judgment. It would indeed be peculiar if the most fundamental concepts of fairness and equality operated only to prohibit the use of public funds to advocate a Yes vote, but did not restrain partiality, unfairness and inequality, however pervasive that might be.30 O'Donnell J quoted from O'Flaherty J in McKenna: [i]t is no answer to say, as has been said, that the advocacy … is gentle, bland and mild and is put forward in the context of making a fair effort on the Government's part to put all matters before the people; nor is it an answer to say that the amount involved, £500,000, is only a small amount; it may well be–but even if it is so, the principle is not affected–nor, finally, is it any answer to say that it is either the entitlement or the “duty” of a Government so to educate the public.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation of the Irish Referendum on Lisbon Treaty, June 2008
    Evaluation of the Irish Referendum on Lisbon Treaty, June 2008 Markus Schmidgen democracy international is a network promoting direct democracy. Our basic goal is the establishment of direct democracy (initiative and referendum) as a complement to representative democracy within the European Union and in the nation states. We also work on the general democratisation of the European Union, democratic reform and more direct and participatory democracy worldwide. http://www.democracy-international.org Written by Markus Schmidgen Layout: Ronald Pabst Proof-reading (contents):, Gayle Kinkead, Ronald Pabst, Thomas Rupp Proof-reading (language): Sheena A. Finley, Warren P. Mayr Advice: Dr. Klaus Hofmann, Bruno Kaufmann, Frank Rehmet Please refer all questions to: [email protected] Published by democracy international V 0.9 (4.9.2008) Evaluation of the Irish Referendum on Lisbon Treaty, June 2008 I Introduction This report examines the process of the Irish CONTENT referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. The referendum was held on June 12, 2008 and was the only referendum on this treaty. The evaluation is I INTRODUCTION .......................................... 3 based on the criteria set by the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe (IRIE). These criteria are internationally recognized as standards to II SETTING...................................................... 4 measure how free and fair a referendum process is conducted. This enables the reader to compare the II.1 Background ................................................... 4 Irish Lisbon referendum to other referendums and to identify the points that could be improved as well II.2 Actors ............................................................. 4 as those that are an example to other nations. II.3 Evaluation...................................................... 7 We at Democracy International and our European partners have already published a series of reports on the EU constitutional referenda of 2005: Juan III CONCLUSION.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Visit to NUI Galway 4-6 March, 2019 Welcoming the Supreme Court to NUI Galway
    Supreme Court Visit to NUI Galway 4-6 March, 2019 Welcoming the Supreme Court to NUI Galway 4-6 March, 2019 Table of Contents Welcome from the Head of School . 2 Te School of Law at NUI Galway . 4 Te Supreme Court of Ireland . 6 Te Judges of the Supreme Court . 8 2 Welcome from the Head of School We are greatly honoured to host the historic sittings of the Irish Supreme Court at NUI Galway this spring. Tis is the frst time that the Supreme Court will sit outside of a courthouse since the Four Courts reopened in 1932, the frst time the court sits in Galway, and only its third time to sit outside of Dublin. To mark the importance of this occasion, we are running a series of events on campus for the public and for our students. I would like to thank the Chief Justice and members of the Supreme Court for participating in these events and for giving their time so generously. Dr Charles O’Mahony, Head of School, NUI Galway We are particularly grateful for the Supreme Court’s willingness to engage with our students. As one of Ireland’s leading Law Schools, our key focus is on the development of both critical thinking and adaptability in our future legal professionals. Tis includes the ability to engage in depth with the new legal challenges arising from social change, and to analyse and apply the law to developing legal problems. Te Supreme Court’s participation in student seminars on a wide range of current legal issues is not only deeply exciting for our students, but ofers them an excellent opportunity to appreciate at frst hand the importance of rigorous legal analysis, and the balance between 3 necessary judicial creativity and maintaining the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Report
    Foreword At the end of its public information campaign, The Commission is very the Referendum Commission established in grateful to suppliers relation to any referendum must prepare a report and contractors for for the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local producing information material of various kinds Government on the performance of its functions. for us within tight timeframes. We are particularly This report outlines the approach taken by the grateful to broadcasters for their cooperation in Referendum Commission to the referendum on the scheduling our free-to-air broadcasts explaining regulation of divorce, and provides some detail on the referendum proposal, often provided to them the main elements of its information campaign. at short notice and broadcast at peak viewing and listening times. These free-to-air broadcasts play On 26 February 2019, the Minister established an important role in providing information, and in a Referendum Commission in relation to the particular in encouraging people to vote on the day referendum on the Thirty-eighth Amendment and we would like to acknowledge that support and of the Constitution (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill express our gratitude for it. 2016, which provided for a referendum on the regulation of divorce. The referendum took place on Pursuant to Section 14(1) of the Referendum Act 24 May 2019. 1998, I hereby present to the Minister the report of the Referendum Commission on the performance This gave the Commission just over twelve weeks of its functions in respect of the referendum on to prepare and deliver its public information the Thirty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution campaign, a longer period than was given to (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Precarious Bicameralism? Senates in Ireland from the Late Middle Ages to the Present
    Precarious Bicameralism? Senates in Ireland from the late Middle Ages to the Present MacCarthaigh, M., & Martin, S. (2019). Precarious Bicameralism? Senates in Ireland from the late Middle Ages to the Present. In N. Bijleveld, C. Grittner, D. E. Smith, & W. Verstegen (Eds.), Reforming Senates: Upper Legislative Houses in North Atlantic Small Powers 1800-present (pp. 239-54). (Routledge Studies in Modern History). Routledge. Published in: Reforming Senates: Upper Legislative Houses in North Atlantic Small Powers 1800-present Document Version: Peer reviewed version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights © 2019 Taylor & Francis. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact
    [Show full text]
  • Template 3 Cover Front and Back
    The Referendum in Ireland 1 Prepared by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage gov.ie/housing 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 2. Constitutional Referendum .............................................................................. 3 2.1 Amendment of the Constitution .............................................................. 3 2.2 Procedure at a Constitutional Referendum ............................................. 5 2.3 Who can vote? ........................................................................................ 5 2.4 Information on proposed amendment ..................................................... 6 2.5 The Poll .................................................................................................. 7 2.6 Voting arrangements .............................................................................. 7 2.7 Voting ..................................................................................................... 8 2.8 The Count ............................................................................................... 9 2.9 Referendum Result ................................................................................. 9 3. Ordinary referendum ..................................................................................... 10 4. Law relating to Referendum........................................................................... 11 5. Other Leaflets ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Discretionary Referenda and the Irish Constitution Timothy Collins
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 35 | Issue 2 Article 7 2010 I Amend Therefore I Am? Discretionary Referenda and the Irish Constitution Timothy Collins Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Recommended Citation Timothy Collins, I Amend Therefore I Am? Discretionary Referenda and the Irish Constitution, 35 Brook. J. Int'l L. (2010). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol35/iss2/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. I AMEND THEREFORE I AM? DISCRETIONARY REFERENDA AND THE IRISH CONSTITUTION INTRODUCTION n July 1, 1937, the people of the Republic of Ireland approved a Onew constitution1 by a plebiscite.2 The public’s consent “rooted [the constitution] in the will of the people”3 and put it “beyond chal- lenge,”4 except via amendment by the people.5 Specifically, Article 46 of the new constitution provided that, in addition to being passed in both houses of the Oireachtas (the Irish parliament);6 prospective amendments must also “be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people”7 in accordance with the current referendum law.8 Since the adoption of the Constitution in 1937, there have been thirty9 amendment proposals sub- mitted to the people by referendum.10 Of these, twenty-one have been approved.11 Meanwhile, regular bills that do not propose amendments to the Con- stitution may be put to referendum at the discretion of the executive branch.
    [Show full text]
  • Referendum Commission Official Languages Act 2003
    REFERENDUM COMMISSION OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT 2003 Introduction This scheme is submitted on behalf of the Referendum Commission. It has been prepared under the Official Languages Act and replaces the previous scheme which was approved on 12 May 2005. Section 15 provides for the preparation by public bodies of a scheme detailing the services they will provide - • through the medium of Irish, • through the medium of Irish and English, and • through the medium of English, and the measures to be adopted to ensure that any service not provided by the public body through Irish will be so provided within an agreed time frame. Background and Role of the Referendum Commission The Referendum Commission is an independent body set up by the Referendum Act 1998 as amended by the Referendum Act 2001. The Act of 1998 provides that the Chairperson of the commission shall be a former judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court or a judge of the High Court. The other members shall be the Clerk of Dáil Éireann, the Clerk of Seanad Éireann, the Ombudsman and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Commission is independent in the performance of its functions and is supported by a secretariat from the Standards in Public Office Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman. The Commission has no full time staff. Whenever a referendum falls to be held, the establishment of a Referendum Commission is at the discretion of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. A Commission is created by means of an Establishment Order issued by the Minister in respect of the proposed referendum.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Ireland | Annual Report 2018 Categorisation of Applications for Leave to Appeal
    Annual Report Supreme Court of Ireland Supreme Court Cúirt Uachtarach na hÉireann Supreme Court of Ireland Annual Report 2018 Report published by the Supreme Court of Ireland with the support of the Courts Service. Editors: Sarahrose Murphy, Senior Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice Patrick Conboy, Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice Case summaries prepared by the following Judicial Assistants: Seán Beatty Iseult Browne Paul Carey Patrick Dunne Luke McCann Paul McDonagh Forde Rachael O’Byrne Owen O’Donnell © Supreme Court of Ireland 2019 Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8 Part 1 | About the Supreme Court of Ireland ............................................................................ 13 Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................................ 14 Background ........................................................................................................................ 14 1. Appellate jurisdiction ..................................................................................................... 14 2. Appellate Constitutional jurisdiction ............................................................................ 15 3. Original jurisdiction ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Submissions to the Citizens' Assembly on the Fourth Topic for Consideration
    Submissions to the Citizens’ Assembly on the fourth topic for consideration The manner in which referenda are held Signpost Document for Assembly Members Key issues raised and themes covered 1 Contents Page Submissions Process and Background..............................................................................3 Purpose of this document.....................................................................................................4 Introduction............................................................................................................................6 1. Referendum Procedure/ Process...................................................................................7 Electronic or Online Voting.......................................................................................................7 Voting location and time available for casting votes................................................................8 Voting from Abroad..................................................................................................................9 Referendum wording including Multi-Optional Ballots.............................................................9 What constitutes a majority? .................................................................................................11 Reporting on results...............................................................................................................12 2. Legal challenges in respect of referendums and their impact, including the ‘McKenna Principles’...........................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Referendums and the Constitution
    Research Paper Research Referendums and the Constitution By Lucy Atkinson and Andrew Blick REFERENDUMS AND THE CONSTITUTION Lucy Atkinson and Andrew Blick First published in Great Britain in 2017 by The Constitution Society Top Floor, 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.consoc.org.uk © The Constitution Society ISBN: 978–0-9954703–4-7 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. REFERENDUMS AND THE CONSTITUTION 3 Contents About the authors 4 Summary and recommendations 5 Key Principles and Good Practice for Referendums in the United Kingdom 8 Introduction 10 The rise of the referendum 22 The pre-history of the referendum 22 Historic phases of the referendum 26 Case studies 40 1975 EEC Referendum 40 ‘The Pontius Pilate of British politics’ 57 The 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement Referendum 71 2011 – The Alternative Vote Referendum 91 Conclusions: key questions 107 Recommendations: Key Principles and Good Practice 126 Key Principles and Good Practice for referendums in the United Kingdom 127 Appendix 1 132 4 REFERENDUMS AND THE CONSTITUTION About the authors Lucy Atkinson is Research Fellow at The Constitution Society. Dr. Andrew Blick is Lecturer in Politics and Contemporary History, King’s College London, and Senior Adviser, The Constitution Society. REFERENDUMS AND THE CONSTITUTION 5 Summary and recommendations On 23 June 2016 a referendum was held in the United Kingdom (UK) to determine whether it should remain within or leave the European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Dáil Éireann
    Vol. 806 Thursday, No. 3 13 June 2013 DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES DÁIL ÉIREANN TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised) Insert Date Here 13/06/2013A00100Leaders’ Questions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 911 13/06/2013D00900Order of Business � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 918 13/06/2013E02200Debt Collectors Bill 2013: First Stage � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 920 13/06/2013E03000Planning and Development (Amendment) Regulations 2013: Motion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 921 13/06/2013E03300Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions: Motion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 921 13/06/2013E03600Topical Issue Matters � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 922 13/06/2013E03800Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011: Order for Report Stage � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 923 13/06/2013E04100Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011: Report and Final Stages � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 923 13/06/2013P02600Business of Dáil � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 956 13/06/2013Q00100Topical
    [Show full text]
  • Referendum Bill, 1998: Second Stage; Committee and Final Stages; Motion for Earlier Signature, Seanad Éireann Debate, Vol
    Source: Seanad Éireann, Debate, Wednesday, 25 February 1998 – Referendum Bill, 1998: Second Stage; Committee and Final Stages; Motion for Earlier Signature, Seanad Éireann Debate, Vol. 154 No. 9, 25.02.98, debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/1998/02/25/. Copyright: (c) Houses of the Oireachtas URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/-ga-edca5e3a-5d32-48f5-8423-0d081b12b817.html Publication date: 19/12/2013 1 / 19 19/12/2013 Seanad Éireann Debate Vol. 154 No. 9 Referendum Bill, 1998: Second Stage. Wednesday, 25 February 1998 Question proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey): Apart from the consolidation and amendment of the law relating to the conduct of a referendum effected by the Referendum Act, 1994, this is the first legislation on referendum law providing for substantial new procedures at a referendum since the original referendum law was enacted in 1942. The Bill provides for new procedures relating to the conduct of a referendum. The establishment of a Referendum Commission to prepare information statements and to foster and promote debate relates to the broader aspect of a referendum campaign, an area that was not heretofore governed by detailed statutory regulation. The new procedure relating to the appointment of agents at a referendum is an extension of the law relating to the detailed conduct of a referendum extending from the taking of the poll to the counting of votes. In this context, while the Bill is a relatively short one, it nevertheless represents a significant development of the law relating to a referendum.
    [Show full text]