State will not appeal court finding on 'unjust' poll deposits

It is understood a High Court decision with major implications for the conduct of elections is not being appealed by the State to the Supreme Court.

The High Court was told yesterday it appeared the State was not challenging the court's finding that the requirement for all candidates to pay deposits before they could contest Dβil and European Parliament elections was unjust, unfair and unconstitutional.

Mr Patrick McCarthy SC, for Mr Thomas Redmond, told Mr Justice Herbert yesterday it was understood there would be no appeal of his judgment, delivered on July 31st last, upholding a constitutional challenge to the deposits requirement taken by his client, who is a retired and formerly unemployed builder, with an address at Coolree, Wexford.

Counsel for the State did not dissent from what Mr McCarthy said. The matter was before the judge to make arrangements for the hearing of an action for damages by Mr Redmond, which action will be heard at a later date.

Mr Redmond submitted nomination papers in the 1992 general election and for the 1994 European Parliament elections, but his name was omitted from the ballot papers after he refused to pay the deposits. He said he was unemployed at the time of both polls and could not pay the deposits without suffering undue hardship.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Herbert found the requirement for candidates to pay a £300 deposit in Dβil elections and £1,000 in elections for the European Parliament was unjust and unfair in the manner in which such deposits discriminated between citizens.

He held that Section 47 of the Electoral Act, 1992, and Section 13 of the European Parliament Elections Act - which respectively require the payments of deposits for Dβil and European elections - were unconstitutional.

The judge said there was no evidence to support the State's argument that, were it not for the requirement to pay deposits, the electoral system would be overrun by spurious candidates and democracy would be undermined.

He also found there was no evidence to support the claim that individual voters would be confused or confounded by any increase in the number of candidates.

The Oireachtas was required to regulate elections and to accommodate any supposed increase in the number of candidates and not to seek to restrict the numbers, he added. The electoral system was the servant of democracy, not its master.

There was evidence that persons of means who were undeterred by deposits and who were unsuccessful in their first attempts to get elected had persisted until they achieved membership of the Dβil.

An expert on elections, Prof Richard Sinnott, had said there was no evidence to show deposits acted as a deterrent to frivolous or vexatious candidates or that removal of the deposit would lead to a proliferation of candidates, the judge said.

Mark Hennessy, Political Reporter, writes:

Election candidates will have to get a petition signed by up to 50 people instead of paying an election deposit, under a plan being considered by the Department of the Environment.

Under the plan members of the public who are registered on the electoral roll will be able to sign a petition form placed in Garda stations and local authorities proposing a candidate.

The petition list could be gathered in advance of an election being called. Once a sufficient number of names are gathered, the local authority will keep the list until the campaign begins.

The Attorney General, Mr McDowell, told the Cabinet a fortnight ago that the ruling should not be appealed. "They made a judgment that they could not win it," said a legal source last night.