2. That only that portion of s. 4 of the Act of 1824 (as amended) should be declared to have had no effect after the date on which the Constitution came into operation.
On appeal by the defendants it was
Held by the Supreme Court (O'Higgins C.J., Henchy, Griffin, Kenny and Parke JJ.), in disallowing the appeal, 1, that the provisions of the portion of s. 4 of the Act of 1824 relating to the offence committed by "every suspected person or reputed thief" who frequents the places therein mentioned (as amended) were inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and that, assuming that they had been in force immediately prior to the date on which the Constitution came into operation, they had not been continued in force after that date by Article 50, s. 1, of the Constitution.
2. That such inconsistency resulted from incompatibility with the requirement in Article 38, s. 1, of the Constitution that no person shall be tried on a criminal charge save in due course of law, with the guarantee in Article 40, s. 4, sub-s. 1, that no citizen shall be deprived of his liberty save in accordance with law, with the principle of equality before the law declared in Article 40, s. 1, and with the guarantee in Article 40, s. 3, to defend and vindicate the personal rights of citizens.
3. That the plaintiff had no locus standi to question the constitutional validity of those parts of s. 4 of the Act of 1824 which were not invoked in the convictions entered against him.
Cahill v. Sutton  I.R. 269 applied
4. (O'Higgins C.J. dissenting) That the further severance of s. 4 of the Act of 1824 by excising from the said portion thereof the words "suspected" and "or reputed thief" in an attempt to remove such inconsistency would not be a proper exercise of the Court's power to review that statute since the resultant remainder of that portion of s. 4 would not be in accordance with the intention of the parliament which enacted that statute.
Maher v. The Attorney General  I.R. 140 considered.
5. That, by reason of such inconsistency, the plaintiffs second conviction for loitering with intent to commit a felony should be declared to be invalid; and that his first conviction for loitering with such intent and his conviction for possession of housebreaking implements with such intent should be declared to be invalid because the orders made in respect of those convictions failed to show jurisdiction.
Cases mentioned in this report:â€”
1The State (Healy) v. Donoghue  I.R. 325.
2Ledwith v. Roberts  1 K.B. 254.
3The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1975  I.R. 129.
4Ryan v. The Attorney General  I.R. 294.
5The People (Attorney General) v. O'Callaghan  I.R. 501.