Show Notes
In Episode 12: we discuss some connected themes from the ‘walk and talk’ that opened up so many relevant topics. We reflect on the wisdom handed down by some of our poets over time and we recall a comment made by Seamus Heaney, the Poet Laureate who referred to every generation being on its own conveyor belt. This led us to a discussion about technology, social media, and all of the landscape on which the upcoming generation is living and attempting to navigate. We discuss the need for scrutiny over the dissemination of information and scrutiny with regard to the potentially damaging powers that social media can have in influencing people in many respects even with regards to how people vote.
More from What does Law mean, Mumu?
In episode 6, which was the last in the series, we hear about the “Murphy Case” (1982), which dealt with the taxation of married women at that time in Ireland. The sequence of events and the challenges involved in bringing this case successfully to the Supreme Court are described by acclaimed lawyer and academic Professor Yvonne Scannell who had been pivotal in raising awareness about the injustices involved with regard to the taxation of married women and ultimately bringing this case to court as a significant legal challenge - which changed the lives of many people.
This episode recalls the significance of the Supreme Court decision in the case of: “The State (Healy) v O’Donoghue”, and outlines the sequence of events leading to the Supreme Court decision establishing legal representation and legal aid as part of a fair trial, in Ireland at that time. There is a detailed account of the circumstances with regard to the prosecution of young offenders at a time when they could be sent to places of detention, without having had a solicitor representing them, presented by leading Irish lawyer Ercus Stewart, S.C. who had been involved in a constitutional challenge that brought about change with far-reaching implications.
This episode involves an analysis of the legal complexities in the divorce case of Mrs Katharine O’Shea, taken by her husband - Captain William O'Shea - in London (1890) which involved Irish Statesman - Charles Stewart Parnell.
Episode 4 brings to light the significance of a High Court case, the decision of which was overturned in the Supreme Court in 1971. The name of the case was “Byrne v Ireland”, the outcome of which was that the former “prerogative of immunity from suit” did not exist in Ireland after the enactment of the Constitution of the Irish Free State,1922, and therefore was not vested or continued by Articles 49 and 50 of the Constitution of Ireland, 1937. The “prerogative of immunity from suit” refers to the principle “The king could do no wrong” – meaning that the citizen could not sue the Monarch or the State.
This episode reviewed the “McGee Case” (1973), in which Mary McGee, a 27-year-old mother of four, took a case against the Attorney General and the Revenue Commissioners, in Ireland, because at that time, she could not get access to contraceptives. This case was selected by, Gerard Hogan, S.C., a leading Irish lawyer, author, and academic who provided the commentary and analysis. It must be pointed out that Gerard Hogan’s career advanced significantly, in the legal world, since the recording of his observations and contribution in 2005. Having served in the High Court and Court of Appeal, he was Ireland’s appointee as Advocate General to the European Court of Justice, in 2018 and, in 2021, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan was appointed to the Irish Supreme Court.