A builder who two years ago won his High Court challenge to legislation requiring Dáil and European candidates to pay deposits, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, was awarded "nominal" damages of €130 yesterday.
Mr Thomas Redmond, Coolree, Wexford, had stated he could not pay the deposits without suffering undue hardship when he submitted nomination papers for the 1992 and 1997 general elections and the 1994 European election. His name was omitted from the ballot papers.
After the High Court in 2002 upheld his challenge to the constitutionality of the deposits requirement, Mr Redmond took further proceedings seeking "exemplary" damages on grounds that the legislation was oppressive and had prevented him contesting elections. The link between the legislation and Mr Redmond's inability to stand in the three elections had resulted in a loss of opportunity, it was argued.
Giving his reserved judgment yesterday on the damages claim, Mr Justice Herbert said he was satisfied there was no basis for an award of punitive or exemplary damages in the case. He said he would award Mr Redmond nominal damages of €130. Those damages were not, and it was important that they should not be considered to be, in any sense derisory or contemptuous, he added.
The judge said Mr Redmond could not establish as a matter of probability that, but for the deposit requirement, he would have had a chance of being elected to the Dáil or European Parliament, or at least have had a chance of putting his political opinions and his legislative proposals before the electorate in the character of a candidate.
"In my judgment, this is a case of injury without loss," the judge said. "However, I am satisfied that this infringement of the plaintiff's constitutional right is actionable without proof of actual loss."
The judge said he was satisfied the sole intention of the Oireachtas in maintaining the deposit requirement was to protect the electoral system from abuse. He was satisfied the sole purpose of the Oireachtas in increasing the amount of the deposit was to reflect changes in the value of money over time - the amount of the deposit for Dáil elections remained at IR£100 from 1923 to 1992, he noted.
It was accepted by all the expert witnesses who gave evidence that the deposit was not generally excessive nor obviously discriminatory.
However, unfortunately, on the evidence, it did have the effect of discriminating against citizens of the State, such as the plaintiff, whose misfortune it was to exist in unusually impoverished circumstances, the judge said.
Despite evidence that the number of "poor households" in the State in 1992 and 1994 was 15 per cent of the population, and in 1997 was 10 per cent, there was no evidence that the Oireachtas wilfully, consciously and knowingly disregarded the possible effect of the deposit requirement on the ability of such citizens to stand for election.
The deposits requirement were not specific to Mr Redmond or to any group or category of citizens, but applied to all citizens. The deposit requirement could not be regarded as a form of limiting access fee or penalty, because it was returnable in certain circumstances.