Supreme Court finds barring orders unconstitutional

The Supreme Court has found certain procedures by which a spouse gains a temporary barring order in the District Court in the absence of the other party to be unconstitutional.

In a landmark ruling today, the court said the failure of the legislature to impose any time limit on the operation of order is "inexplicable".

The court also ruled the granting of a temporary order to a spouse without due notification being given to the third party was unconstitutional.

Under the 1996 Domestic Violence Act a spouse can gain a temporary barring order without notifying the other party and no time limit is required to be set on the operation of the order.

The Supreme Court ruled these two provisions of the Act to be unconstitutional.

The court said the Act "deprived the applicant of natural justice and of his constitutional right to equal treatment before the law and to fair procedures".

In its ruling the court said: "The granting of an interim order in the absence of the defendant may in such cases crucially tilt the balance of the entire litigation against him or her to an extent which may subsequently be difficult to redress."

Mr Justice Ronan Keane said the party against whom the temporary order is made is deprived of one of the central maxims of natural justice - the right to be heard.

The Labour Party today urged the Minister for Justice to immediately review the provisions of the 1996 Domestic Violence Act in the wake of the decision.

Labour's Law Reform Spokesperson, Ms Jan O'Sullivan said that the interests of the victims of domestic violence must be paramount in such a review.