[ad_1]
A man with an intellectual disability who stopped marrying his girlfriend has filed a constitutional challenge.
The Irish Commission for Human Rights and Equality has joined the case.
The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, has taken legal action after a Superior Court order was obtained last year preventing him from marrying his 15-year-old girlfriend who also has an intellectual disability.
The day before the man was due to marry, a charity that provides him with residential and other services petitioned the High Court to place him under judicial guardianship.
It was argued that the man did not have the ability to marry or make important decisions about how to manage himself.
Order preventing marriage
Following this request, the then Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Judge Peter Kelly, who examined the matter, issued an order preventing the marriage from proceeding.
The man’s brothers supported the request to place him under judicial guardianship. He objected and wanted to continue the marriage.
As a result, the man has filed a constitutional appeal against Ireland’s Health and Justice Ministers and the Attorney General for laws that he claims are unfair and violate his rights, preventing him from marrying.
Look for various statements, including that the Lunatic Marriage Act of 1811 and the Insanity Regulation of 1871 are unconstitutional and violate your rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The 1871 Law regulates the Superior Court guardianship procedure, while the 1811 Law annuls any marriage celebrated by a person under judicial guardianship.
Human rights
It also requests a statement that the guardianship jurisdiction conferred on the President of the High Court in the Courts of Justice Act 1936 and the Courts Act 1961 are unconstitutional and violate his rights under the ECHR.
In addition, it requests a declaration that, in order to protect and vindicate their rights, defendants must implement without further delay section 7 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, which provides for the replacement of the judicial system. existing and the introduction of a judicial system. new supported decision-making system.
The challenge was briefly mentioned today before Judge Leonie Reynolds. The judge was told that the Commission could add itself as an ‘amicus curiae’ to the action.
The Commission, represented by Eoin McCullough SC, will assist the court in the process by offering information and experience on the issues raised in the case.
There were no objections to the accession of the Commission. The judge also established an agreed schedule for the exchange of documents in the case.
The matter will be brought up in court in January, with a view to being heard in spring 2021. Judge Reynolds had expressed the court’s concern about how long the process would take, given that the case appeared to be urgent.
The applicant’s attorney Frank Callinan SC, who appeared with Michael Lynn SC, told the court that while a lot of work has been done, it would take time to prepare and finalize his witness statements.
The State, added the lawyer, would need time to respond to the statements. Attorneys for the parties said they want the matter heard as soon as possible.
[ad_2]