![Show Menu](styles/mobile-menu.png)
![Page Background](./../common/page-substrates/page0010.jpg)
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND
GAZETTE
Vol. 80. No. 1
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1986
One Law?
T
he appearance of newspaper advertisements cele-
brating the continuance for 5 years of what is
apparently an illegal activity may be seen as a tribute to
a robust and free press. Since however the anniversary
in question is that of a pirate radio station, the publi-
cation may be seen as a triumphant celebration of the
failure of successive governments to enforce the law of
the land. It may well be that there is public desire for a
different style of radio presentation or programme
contents from those available from RTE. If there is it
may be appropriate that independent radio stations
should be permitted to meet this demand. Legislation
has too long been promised. The delay in producing this
legislation, so typical of recent administrations does not
however excuse the continuance of the present flouting
of the law.
The absence of any determined attempt to enforce
any illegal radio station to cease operation is impossible
to justify. It may be, though there do not seem to have
been any failures in the Courts, that there are difficul-
ties about instituting proceedings against the operators
of illegal stations. If a direct prosecution for operating
an illegal station is unlikely to succeed there may be
other ways of choking the cat which might render the
operation of such stations commercially impossible.
The local planning authorities are not slow to bring
proceedings under Sections 26 and 27 of the 1976 Plan-
ning Act to curtail the operation of other unlawful uses.
It is curious that it was left to third parties to explore
this approach. If the operation of a radio station is
unlawful then will not the illegality taint transactions
connected with the operation of the station. Should
advertisers' payments to the station be deductible
expenses for tax purposes? Any advertiser who to a
lesser or greater extent is subject to some state control or
supervision might perhaps be advised that the continu-
ance of supporting the illegal activity of the pirate radio
station is not consistent with support from the State.
From a lawyer's point of view the even more interesting
thought occurs that any body corporate which advertises
on such a station is indulging in an ultra vires activity
since it surely cannot be an activity permitted by its
Memorandum of Association.
This failure to clamp down on unlawful activities
contrasts curiously with the decision to renew the res-
trictions applied to RTE under Section 31 of the Broad-
casting Act. No similar restrictions can be placed on
pirate radio stations, which are outside the jurisdiction
of the Act. The Government's failure to prevent the
operation of unlawful broadcasting stations means that
freedom of the air has been granted to those spokesmen
for unlawful organisations whom the Government
rightly feels should not be permitted to preach their
dangerous creed on the air waves.
Increasingly it appears that in every facet of the State's
activities, particularly in the areas of taxation and the
collection of fines imposed by the Courts, it is the law
abiding who suffer for being good citizens. Those who
readily or voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the
State are hard pressed, while those who thumb their
noses at the system escape scot free. Is it any wonder
that the black economy grows as people see that the
"consent of the governed" operates to the detriment of
those consenting. It is the duty of a governemnt to
govern, to apply the laws without fear or favour. It is
also the duty of the government to seek out those who
choose to ignore or reject the laws and to ensure that
such people are brought within the laws.
1