Sir, – John Colgan (July 30th) made a couple of perceptive observations about the president’s role in deciding whether or not to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court under Article 26 of the Constitution. However, he fell into error in discussing the immunity from future challenge of legislation which the Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional.
Mr Colgan stated that the compulsory fluoridation of water, which Gladys Ryan challenged in the 1960s, could not be challenged again because the Supreme Court rejected Mrs Ryan’s arguments.
However, Article 34.3.3 makes clear that the bar to a further constitutional challenge attaches only to legislative provisions which have been upheld by the Supreme Court in an Article 26 reference, and does not apply to constitutional challenges taken by litigants. Compulsory water fluoridation may thus be challenged again in the future. – Yours, etc,
MARK COEN,
School of Law and
Government,
Dublin City University,
Dublin 9.