Direct Democrach claims: "Irish Household Charge successfully challenged"

Status
Not open for further replies.

kopkidda

Registered User
Messages
158
Not sure if this is covered on any other thread.

Whats peoples thoughts on this? Are the people who refused to pay and had the €200 taken direct from their pay due this back?

Dermot Murphy
Now this is a Landmark Case.......................... .Household Charge Challenge

Solicitors for Mayo County Council (M.C.C.) today (5/3/15) withdrew charges for non-payment of the 2012 Household Charge against Peter Anthony Keegan, the first man to be charged with the “offence”.

Today’s siting of the Castlebar Circuit Court saw Peter Keegan summonsed by M.C.C. to appear before Judge Mary Devins, to face charges in relation to non payment of the Household Charge.

These charges have seen Peter attending Court many times over the last 2 years, arguing and counterclaiming that the Household Charge is unenforceable due to its unconstitutional nature.

Mr Keegan has challenged the Council and their legal team to prove to the court that the Charge applied to him and to disprove his claims of unconstitutionality, and after two years attending court on multiple occasions the case is finally over.

This morning solicitor Ward McEllin, acting for Mayo County Council (plaintiff), withdrew all charges on his client’s behalf before the case could be heard. Peter Keegan walked out of Castlebar Court, a happy man, accompanied by his family and supporters

McEllin Solicitors stated it was now a matter for Revenue to pursue. However, Revenue likewise would have to succeed where M.C.C. failed, in proving the Charge was constitutional.

Mr Keegan is now protected by the Law, in that he has shown the household charge to be unenforceable, and this has been acknowledged by Judge Devins and the Court Clerk with the withdrawal of charges.

Comment

The imposition of Local Property Tax and its forerunner the Household Charge on a primary residence has long been something DDI has stood against, noting that it was only introduced to fill the gap left when the Department of the Environment vastly reduced Local Government funding to pay off the bondholders and the subsequent bailout costs.

This test case is a potentially huge victory for the people against the government, so you would have thought the media would be all over this, but as yet, despite being informed, they have not covered the story.

As M.C.C. failed to prove the constitutionality of this Household Charge, or prove that it applied to Mr Keegan, this opens the possibility that everyone who paid the charge, generally under duress, should be entitled to a refund of their €100 plus penalties if applied.

Furthermore, those who were bullied, harassed, threatened or frightened into paying the charge may consider seeking redress for damages. We trust also that Mr Keegan will be applying for costs for his 2 years of work and worry.

The group behind the victory may now consider looking at the Local Property Tax with a view to testing its constitutionality in the near future.

Our core group at DDI have always pushed for legal solutions for these injustices, as we do in the water charges and the repossession scandals.

We recall the collapse of the many CAHWT groups after it was taken over by political groupings who later abandoned the cause. Sadly their sizable fund collected for a legal challenge ended up wasted on other activities and the attempted politicising of the cause.

So today’s court victory is a victory for the ordinary people who pursued this when others abandoned ship when it was no longer beneficial to them. It highlights that some groups intentions, methods and agendas can be counter productive to the original worthy cause.

So, congratulations to all involved for showing people that they are not helpless against the State, and that they can use the courts to enforce what is right if they use them correctly.
 
I did a search for such articles and this isn't really making any splashes at all... I would have assumed that it would get some exposure in main stream... Article I found also had the following:

Addendum Note


This is a win for Peter but only a step for others. It is not a legal precedent as such because there was no order by the judge as the case was withdrawn. Neither does it prove the Charge is unconstitutional because only the Supreme Court can make that judgement.

What it is is an indication that the State may be worried they do not have a strong enough case should it be appealed as far as the Supreme Court, and do not want to take the risk. Their hope being this will not be reported and will just vanish without the general public getting to hear about it. Well they know now so we’ll see who makes the next move
 
Here's a chance for the media to report fairly and show that they're "not always" in cahoots with this Govt. That's if they're capable of understanding what happened in court.
 
I'd agree with sahd. It is no vindication of Mr Keegan's assertion and his unwillingness to pay. The judge has not ruled on the matter. The council have decided not to pursue it because it is no longer their job to pursue it. Revenue will probably now start to pursue Mr. Keegan for the money and they have other means at their disposal besides taking him to court; means the council did not have access to. The council have simply stepped aside to allow Revenue to deal with the matter. There is no finding of "unconstitutional". There is no support of Mr Keegan's position.
 
Being a little facetious kopkidda, you probably need to change the thread title!

It isn't correct to say "Irish Household Charge successfully challenged"
It is correct to say "Mayo County Council stop pursuing anti-household charge protestor for outstanding household charge"
;)
 
Typical of Direct Democracy Ireland's and their followers ignorance of the law. How can a case being withdrawn equate to a successful challenge of the law?
 
Oh and someone ought to do the kind thing and disabuse Mr Keegan of the notion that this offers him any protection. Revenue do not have to "prove the constitutionality" of the charge in order to start charging him. The exact opposite is true. Neither Direct Democracy, nor Mr Keegan have succeeded in proving it unconstitutional. They have proved nothing whatsoever. No wonder the media isn't interested, how could such failure prove newsworthy.
 
Oh and someone ought to do the kind thing and disabuse Mr Keegan of the notion that this offers him any protection. Revenue do not have to "prove the constitutionality" of the charge in order to start charging him. The exact opposite is true. Neither Direct Democracy, nor Mr Keegan have succeeded in proving it unconstitutional. They have proved nothing whatsoever. No wonder the media isn't interested, how could such failure prove newsworthy.

That you Mr Taxman?
 
When Mayo failed to beat Kerry in the All Ireland Semi-Final last year, they were deemed to have failed. Yet it proved very newsworthy.
 
That you Mr Taxman?
No, I am not Mr Taxman. Simply pointing out the obvious. Revenue don't have to prove anything to charge him, despite what Direct Democracy think. They don't have to take him to court either to try and force him to pay. On that basis, someone ought to tell him the truth. Instead he has DDI attempting to make this out to be some form of meaningful "victory".
 
Mayo losing to Kerry in an All-Ireland semi (and simultaneously Kerry winning) is newsworthy for more than one reason noproblem. Aside from it being relevant to and of intense, passionate interest to tens of thousands of people (unlike a story about Mayo CoCo dropping a case against one individual which makes no difference to anyone but Mr Keegan), it also forms part of a long history of Mayo losing in the football and of course it feeds nicely the story of the legendary curse :)
 
I'd have thought that people might make up their own mind as to what exactly this court case might mean, instead of some "experts" feeling that their assumptions are the one and only ones.
 
Do you think the media should inundate us with every bit of gossip, every snippet of story from around the country? Why would they? They are in the business of selling. News (and of course opinion and an enormous amount of fluff) to you and me, us to advertisers. The media need saleable stories that drive traffic to their outlet noproblem, be that online, print, radio or television. They aren't in the business of telling every little story - they only go for ones that will appeal and/or matter to a large number of people.

The problem with this particular "story" is there is no story to tell, definitely not one that will compete on a national stage currently dominated by at least three major court stories (Graham O'Dwyer murder trial, O'Donnell circus and Bailey suing the state). This is small beans news at best - it doesn't change anything legally, it doesn't set any precedents, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the vast majority of people. In truth, it only really matters deeply to Mr Keegan. And what Direct Democracy Ireland have published on their website is simply wrong. There is no "victory" for them or for Mr Keegan in Mayo CoCo dropping the case, by doing so Mayo CoCo are expediting payment to themselves and removing the frivolous cost of pursuing Mr Keegan via the courts. They will get the money quicker via Revenue than via the courts.

If Direct Democracy had a major following themselves it might be a reason to publish something in a major new outlet or for it to become a topic of discussion because then what DDI say would matter to many people. But they don't have a major following and what they say doesn't matter to many people.

There is no grand conspiracy to keep the populace in the dark. The media aren't not publishing it because of some "expert's" assumptions about the merits of the (non-)case. They are not publishing it because it won't bring in readers and it won't bring in advertisers.

Make no mistake, I do not profess to be any expert on the matter - I am simply realistic.
 
I'd have thought that people might make up their own mind as to what exactly this court case might mean, instead of some "experts" feeling that their assumptions are the one and only ones.

So if the media made a big song and dance about this, thereby misleading lots of people into thinking they shouldn't pay the 2012 charge or that, assuming that they already have as most have by now, that they were wrong to so do then you would be happy?

You don't have to be an expert or style yourself as an expert to realise that his one case sets absolutely no precedence whatsoever for anyone else and, at the end of the day, probably makes no difference to the householder either?

And what is wrong with people who have expertise in a certain area coming on here and commenting? After all I suspect most people who visit This website and ask a question, be it about Law or leaking radiators are actually more interested in what the experts say than what the non experts says.
 
I'd have thought that people might make up their own mind as to what exactly this court case might mean, instead of some "experts" feeling that their assumptions are the one and only ones.

It is very hard to make up your mind about something that never happened... The charges were withdrawn so there was no ruling to digest...
 
So if the media made a big song and dance about this, thereby misleading lots of people into thinking they shouldn't pay the 2012 charge or that, assuming that they already have as most have by now, that they were wrong to so do then you would be happy?

You don't have to be an expert or style yourself as an expert to realise that his one case sets absolutely no precedence whatsoever for anyone else and, at the end of the day, probably makes no difference to the householder either?

And what is wrong with people who have expertise in a certain area coming on here and commenting? After all I suspect most people who visit This website and ask a question, be it about Law or leaking radiators are actually more interested in what the experts say than what the non experts says.


I have no problem with anyone making a point, just like I'm asking and questioning certain things. As for the experts you talk about, I'd like to know who or what they are on this subject. Maybe if the person knew of them, he wouldn't have gone ahead with his questioning things. Oh, by the way, it wasn't the "non experts" in the banking industry that brought us the debt we have, or maybe you conveniently forget certain things.
 
Oscar Wilde said the last refuge of the scoundrel was Patriotism.

It seems the last refuge of certain people these days is to mention Bankers and the Banking crisis regardless what the subject under discussion.

So goodnight and good luck.
 
So my understanding of this is
  • Man sues County Council over constitutionality of household charge
  • Man fails to prove the charge is unconstitutional
  • County Council say it is nothing to do with them but it is a matter for the revenue
  • The debt still exists
  • the plaintiff seems to think the onus is on the Revenue to now prove the charge is constituational?
  • The plaintiff thinks the Revenue won't pursue him because they won't want this to come to court because they will lose
  • and the tax the plaintiff owes is probably less then a couple of hundred euro.

Does this mean the plaintiff will now be suing the Revenue.?

So if I follow the plaintiff's logic, I need never pay any PAYE, PRSI, CGT, Water Tax, Property charge or any other tax because the onus is on the Revenue to prove that each and every charge is constitutional? Happy days, no more taxes:)

And there go the pigs flying past my window !!
 
A good summary to close this Letting off Steam thread on.

I have removed a few posts with personal attacks.

Brendan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top