Sir, Your issue (May 7th) provided readers with plenty of food for thought. It was absolutely amazing to read Ms Geraldine Kennedy's carefully crafted article which treated us to a forecast of the Supreme Court's thinking in Mr Hanafin's divorce referendum case, also the political nightmare for the Coalition Government should the court decide to punish the executive for their wrongdoing against the people. Then, turning to the Letters Page, it was absolutely astounding to read Mr Donal Nunan's analysis of the Government's original Constitutional sin upon which the court must pass judgment.
Ms Kennedy's source would appear to have access to information about the strength of legal argument likely to influence the combined wisdom of the Supreme Court while on a reading of Mr Nunan's contribution, which outlines". . . the problem of research based on actual life as distinct from controlled conditions in laboratories", it would not be unreasonable to assume that a penalty should fit the wrongdoing of the combined wisdom of the executive, when they agreed to use their power to excess to dip into public funds and eat £500,000 worth of forbidden fruit with impunity, until the Green Party MEP, Ms McKenna, sought the assistance of the Supreme Court to declare this fruit unfit for the electorate's consumption.
The final submission of Mr Donal O'Donnel SC, counsel for Mr Hanafin, put this point more succinctly for the Supreme Court's consideration when he respectfully submitted "The Government ate the forbidden fruit and was inviting the Court to do the same." Yours, etc., Duncairn Terrace, Bray, Co Wicklow.