Interpreting the Constitution

When interpreting the constitution, a strictly literal approach is not always ideal, or indeed possible. As a result, the courts have adopted various different methods of interpretation of our basic legal text. The three most common are listed below 

a) Purposive Interpretation

On certain occasions the Supreme Court, instead of taking a literal interpretation of a constitutional provision has instead taken one based on its intended purpose. They do this for many reasons the most prominently to enforce to law with regards for its intentions as opposed to just enforcing it for the sake of it. The purposive interpretation is therefore a useful tool, as it grants them certain discretion when making decision. A clear example of this could be Article 7 which declares that the Irish Flag shall be a tricolour. While this seems simple at first, Tricolour flags come in various shapes and sizes, for example Holland’s or India’s. However, by using purposive interpretation, the Courts can easily decide upon what was meant

Perhaps the leading case law in this is Quinns supermarket V Attorney general, which involved an analysis of article 44.2. This provision guarantee the free profession and practice of religion, which is liable to conflict with it's prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. In this case the Supreme Court held that the aim of the article was to guarantee the free practice and profession of religion it would be completely contrary to the spirit of Article 44 to permit its non discrimination provision to become the means of restricting the free practice of religions.

While in this case it was relatively easy to discern the purpose of the article, it would be far more difficult to discover the purpose of other constitutional provisions, and any conclusion or decision would probably be based on speculation alone. Historical analysis however may assist, as is shown in the case of  O'Byrne vs the Minister for Finance, here it was held that the purpose of guaranteeing judges salaries against reduction was to preserve their independence, however it should be noted that in a recent referendum the independence of Judges salaries from being reduced was squashed.

(b) Literal interpretation

A literal interpretation involves reading the contents of the constitution at face value; in some cases the supreme court has given constitutional provisions an absolutely literal interpretation. This approach was taken in D.P.P. Vs O'Shea, in which the Supreme Court had to decide whether the state could repeal a verdict of acquittal which had previously been handed down by the high court. The standard principals of the common law do general prevent such an appeal as being an infringement of the accused’s rights. Article 34.4.3 however extends the right of appeal to the supreme court to all of the decisions of the high court, taken literally the court decided that the state was entitled to appeal the acquittal, it was stated that the constitution, which is the fundamental law of the state must be interpreted and construed according to the words which are used, while most of the provisions of the constitution are clear and should only be read literally many are open to interpretation.

It is not intended to have the level of details as an act of parliament; instead it provides a framework for later laws to operate within. As a result a strictly literal interpretation may cause more harm than good. Justice Costello warned that in interpreting the constitution

‘’the courts should not place the same significance on differences of languages used in two succeeding sub paragraphs as would for example be placed on differently drafted sub sections of a finance act. A purposive rather than a strictly literal approach to the sub paragraphs seems appropriate.’’

(c) Harmonious

The harmonious method of interpretation involves reading articles of the constitution in light of other provisions that are contained in the document. What this essentially means is that rather than being viewed as isolated vision the various parts of the constitution should work in tandem rather than independently. The courts seek a middle read that has a harmony between the articles of the consitution. A useful if possibly controversial example of this is in Ob vs S. In this case the plaintiff who was born out of wedlock, and thus was not entitled to claim any property from the estate of her parent. The court agreed while at first glance this was unequal treatment they ultimately concluded that such unequal treatment was justified by the constitutional preference for marriage.

This case shows that the contents of one article of the constitution may be used to cast light and interpret the meaning of another article. Such an approach was also adopted in Dillain vs Ireland, while the court agreed that he was subject to unequal treatment they concluded that such treatment was allowed by article 40.1.

To consider a specific provision independent from its context may cause us to miss it's intended meeting, and this also applies to constitutional provisions. This is why courts adopt the harmonious approach as it allows certain parts of the constitution to assist in interpreting the rest