Fee for Dail candidates unjust, court is told

The State is defending the imposition of a £300 deposit fee on Dail candidates on the grounds that it would deter spurious candidates, although it has failed to define "spurious", the High Court was told yesterday.

The Oireachtas was not entitled to determine who was spurious or not, Ms Deirdre Murphy SC argued.

If a spurious candidate was one who lost a deposit, there would be "an interesting list of spurious candidates", including the present Tanaiste, Ms Harney; Workers' Party president Mr Tomas McGiolla; and Labour TD Mr Eric Byrne, all of whom lost their deposits on their first electoral outings but were subsequently elected to the Dail, counsel remarked.

Ms Murphy, with Mr Patrick McCarthy SC and Mr Noel Whelan, was continuing her opening of a challenge by a retired and formerly unemployed builder, Mr Thomas Redmond, of Coolree, Wexford, to the constitutionality of laws requiring Dail and European Parliament election candidates to pay a deposit of £300 and £1,000 respectively before being deemed eligible for election.

Mr Redmond had submitted nomination papers for election to the Wexford constituency in the November 1992 general election and for the European elections of November 1994. He refused to pay the deposits on both occasions and was not included on the ballot papers. He said he was unemployed at the time of both polls and could not pay the deposits without suffering undue hardship.

In proceedings before Mr Justice Herbert, he is seeking declarations that Section 47 of the Electoral Act 1992 and Section 13 of the European Parliament Elections Act 1979 - which require the payment of deposits for the Dail and European elections - are invalid and unconstitutional.

The deposit requirement was anti-democratic, unfair, unjust, irrational and arbitrary and discriminated against poorer citizens, independent candidates and the smaller political parties, Ms Murphy said. ail, while it cost £1,000 to run for Europe. These The deposits required were significant amounts for many people. She questioned whether there should be any right in a democratic state to deter election candidates. For the Oireachtas to do so was "paternalistic" and "protective of the current incumbents of the Dail". In requiring a deposit, the Oireachtas was effectively saying it wished to deter from standing for election people it considered should not be standing.

The right to run for election was the cornerstone of a democracy and the payment of a fee imposed a significant limitation on the exercise of that right. If it was right to impose a fee, where was the curtailment of such a fee? It could be £300 today and £300,000 tomorrow. In principle, it was unconstitutional to charge fees for the exercise of a constitutional right. ail and European Parliament election candidates to pay a deposit of £300 and £1,000 respectively before they may be being deemed eligible for election.

Mr Redmond had submitted nomination papers for election to the Wexford constituency in the November 1992 general election and for the European Assembly elections of November 1994. He refused to pay the deposits required on both occasions and was not included on the ballot papers. He says said he was unemployed at the time of both polls and could not pay the deposits without suffering undue hardship.

In proceedings before Mr Justice Herbert, he is seeking declarations that Section 47 of the Electoral Act 1992 and Section 13 of the European Parliament Elections Act 1979 - which respectively require the payment of deposits for the Dail and European elections - are invalid and unconstitutional. In court yesterday, Ms Murphy said the Constitution specified that unless citizens were disqualified by law, they were eligible for election. The Oireachtas had failed to pass a law disqualifying persons who did not pay the election deposits but had sought instead to impose payment of a deposit as a condition of eligibility. This the Oireachtas could not do.

If there was a right to deter people from running for election - and the courts should look carefully at whether this was desirable in a democratic state - then the means employed to do so must be democratic and fair and proportional to the objective, counsel said.

The State was arguing that the purpose of the deposits was to deter spurious candidates and to protect the electoral process.

But under the present situation, a wealthy person could interfere with the electoral process if they so wished. It would cost just £123,000 to run 10 additional candidates in all 41 constituencies. On the other hand, a poor but serious candidate might not be able to run. If the Oireachtas sought to charge a fee for voting, she was sure the courts would declare that unconstitutional. Why should a fee to determine electoral eligibility be any different? ail had lost just one deposit, while independent non-party candidates lost £26,1000?? £26,100 in deposits. The deposit requirement was protective of the positions of the larger Dail parties and eroded the electoral funds of individuals and small parties when they needed it most.

The hearing continues today.