Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

A great many questions were asked, some of which are relevant to what I can say and others which I simply cannot answer. Looking at the evolution of Supreme Court judgments, which a number of speakers asked about, no court will suddenly start issuing statements about this and that. Courts deal with cases that come before them. Therefore, it would require a further case to come before the court before it could be expected to change its point of view. On the other hand, it does very occasionally happen that the Supreme Court changes its approach. In general, however, it follows a rule known as stare decisis, which means that what is decided stays decided in the vast majority of cases, because it would involve introducing a huge uncertainty into the law if it were to change daily from time to time. I expect even Professor Binchy would accept that. One cannot really expect the whole thing to change ever so conveniently in such a way as to make it easier for legislators. One cannot expect the Supreme Court suddenly to up and say that it knows this is creating a problem and it will issue a statement about it. That is not about to happen. I come back to the fact, which is accepted, that what the Supreme Court decides is the law.

Unfortunately for the committee, that included suicide ideation or the ground of suicide. This can of course be changed if a referendum takes place. I think a referendum would be needed.

Senator Walsh asked if the Oireachtas is obliged to legislate and inquired as to whether it should be left to case law. That is precisely what the Oireachtas has been doing for the past 20 years. Again and again the courts have asked it to legislate because they would much prefer for the law to be set down - as it should be under the separation of powers - by the Legislature and the Executive. The Legislative, as well as the Executive, should play an important part in it. However, that to which I refer has not happened and, therefore, it has been left to the courts to make these decisions.

As the Senator said, one would have to be concerned with regard to what is termed "opening the floodgates". Is this a practical reality, however, given the medical culture to which Professor Binchy refers and also the culture of the country? If the Senator is afraid that this is going to open the floodgates, I think he is afraid that Irish people are - for themselves - going to open the floodgates. We ought to have a bit more trust in them and in Irish doctors rather than suggesting that the moment this is introduced into law, everyone will be galloping to do something that they do not do already. Again, I return to the problem that we do it already to a certain extent. However, compared to other countries such as England, our rate of abortion is low and I think it would stay that way. I hate the way that we always compare ourselves to England. Why do we not consider the position in some of the continental countries which have other laws? Why are we stuck with this sort of symbiotic relationship with England in respect of divorce, abortion and everything else? I suggest that we should consider what happens in other countries.

On a practice that is there over time, if it is an illegal practice it will remain as such. If it is challenged in court, it will be in difficulty. I do not believe one can just establish law by continually doing something. On the other hand, if it has been established practice, it can be argued that the law should be changed in order to allow it to be there.

Deputy Tóibín referred to the quantification of a real and substantial threat. That is not in the judgment and I find it difficult to see how it could be done by a judgment. It could perhaps be done by detailed regulations. It is very interesting to consider the opinions of the Attorneys General at the time. Perhaps the Government of the day should have paid a bit more attention to the legal advice it received when introducing the 1983 amendment.