The Irish Language

Article 8 of the Irish constitution declares that

1)      The Irish as the national language, is the first official language

2)      The English Language is recognized as the second official language

3)      Provision may however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either languages for any one or more official purposes, either throughout the State or in any part thereof

The ‘national language component is further emphasised by Article 25.5.4 which states that should a conflict arise between either version in the constitution, the Irish language shall take precedent. This is most notably seen in Article 12.4.1 in which the English version states that a candidate for president must have reached his 35^th year of age (34 years old) while the Irish version states that they must be 35. It is therefore the Irish language which reigns supreme. It is interesting to note that, while the Irish language shall be superior in regards the constitution, no such provision is made for legislation passed by the Oireachtas. Instead, should a conflict of interest arise, whichever language the bill was signed in shall win it. It should be noted that the courts are wary of over-emphasising one language over the other. Usually the Courts tend to read the texts in a harmonious fashion between the two translations, as was seen in the case of Quinns Supermarket v Attorney General.

Despite Irish being the first official language of the State, it is a clear fact that the vast majority of citizens in this country converse in English. This however, creates the problem of the use of Irish in Courts. With English being the primary language used by people, it follows that English becomes the language of the Courts. What then however, of those who which to have their proceedings done through Irish? The leading case on the Irish Language in relation to legal proceedings us that of State (MacFhearraigh) v Gaffney. In this case, the prosecutor wished to have his case conducted in Irish, as he claimed was his constitutional right. Rather than have some witnesses cross-examined in Irish and some in English, he demanded that all be examined through the Irish Language, which they refused. While it was first held that such a process would be far too time consuming and unnecessary, the prosecutor sought an order of mandamus, requiring cross examining in Irish, which was granted. In granting the order, O’Hanlon J. Declared that either party was permitted to conduct his side of the case in Irish if he so wished and it was not for the court to decide whether he had sufficient English. A right exists under the constitution to the first official language, unless specifically stated otherwise by the Oireachtas. This right however, is limited by principles of natural justice that is each party to a case must be able to understand the proceedings. To do otherwise would be to give the Irish language an unfair advantage as was seen in the case of State (Buchan) v Coyne.

With Irish the official language of the nation, the question arise of what then does this mean for the legal professionals who practice law in this country? The Legal Practitioners Act 1929 demands a competent command of the Irish Language for both barristers and solicitors. This, in practice has lead to the creation of a compulsory, if non-examinable course in Irish taken by both students at Kings Inns and Blackhall place. For the judiciary who work in Gaeltacht, a degree of fluency is required, as it would be almost impossible to function otherwise without the court falling into disrepute. However, despite this, it is generally not possible to carry out legal administration and proceedings entirely in Irish, as the complex terminology required simply does not exist in the Irish vocabulary. This limits the role the Irish lexicon can play in the legal system and does not sit well with constitutional law judges, especially in light of Article 8

The Irish Language has also arisen in the European Court of Justice in the case of Groener v Minister for Education. The EC provision of free movement of workers had come into conflict with Article 8, which put Irish as the first language. The plaintiff, a Dutch citizen had been turned down for a full time position in Dublin on the ground that her level of Irish was insufficient, despite the fact that it was made abundantly clear the job would be carried out in English. The ECHR, while referencing Article 8, continued and stated that it had long been part of the Irish Government’s policy to promote the Irish language as a means of National Identity and culture. However, it stated that such a policy must not conflict upon a fundamental freedom or bring about discrimination against foreign nationals . It was thus stated that although it was important that teachers have a degree of fluency, given the importance of education in sustaining the language, it may not be implemented in a disproportionate  or discriminatory manner

The Irish language was very important to the drafters of the constitution and this is made abundantly clear by Article 8, which enshrines Gaelic as our first official language. The state is thus obliged to facilitate those who wish to conduct court proceedings in Irish, although they may not do so in an unduly fair way.