The Gazette 1974

An interesting example of the inferiority of a wiff before the law was quoted by James O'Reilly. Bot» 1 husband and wife have mutual right of consortium 111 each other, which includes the right to sexual inter- course. But there are three instances where a husban can get damages against a third party for i n t e r f e r e^ with his right of consortium, and a wife cannot clai® 1. They are : (a) an action for criminal conversation (damag^ against a third party for an act of adultery commit te ° with his wife). (b) damages for total loss of his wife's consorting (e.g., where a wife spends a lengthy period in hospi 13 after a car crash caused by a third party). (c) damages for loss of services (a husband is titled to be compensated for the lack of h o u s e h o l services his wife performs). The reason only a husband can claim here (and 1 quote Mr. O'Reilly) is : Recommendations "He is given superiority in law. He is recognised & having a quasi-proprietary interest in his wife an accordingly if someone has "damaged" his property, h e is entitled to be financially compensated. He can al s claim damages against a third party for loss of hj* wife's services, because technically, his wife is h 1 ' servant." j Many people pointed out the necessity for eq® 3 ' status before the law for wives, even if only in interest of their own dignity and self esteem. ^ A number of summing up recommendations emerg e from the end of the conference. They were (1) A systenj of attachment of earnings for the enforcement maintenance orders. (2) The introduction of a system family tribunals—marriage cases should be kept out 0 criminal law—these should have power to make sepa 1 " 3 ' tion, non-molestation, custody, maintenance and oth®| financial orders (3) The introduction of a system 0 free legal aid and advice. (4) Immediate support f° r deserted wives and an increase in the level of all oV/ ' ances. There were no proposals for the complete dissolution of marriage with a right to remarry. Nobody though 1 this was feasible, though some like Mrs. Catherine McGuinness, pointed out that we should realise th 3 ' the fact that no legal dissolution existed did not me® 11 that marriages did not break up irretrievably and William Duncan, a lecturer in Law at Trinity spoke 0 the brutality of forcing people "to live together 1,1 loathsome circumstances."

the other by-product of this situation was that very few legal practitioners specialised in this type of case and that there was a consequent lack of expertise and lack of knowledge of the possibilities of the law. A young man from Northern Ireland stood up and gave four reasons for the present situation : 1, Lack of Women in Politics. 2, Rigidity of Religious Autho- rity. 3, Social priorities of Male rights and privileges. 4, Uninspired and unwilling breaucracy. He delivered a mighty attack on the Department of Justice under this heading, calling it the Department of Injustice. A clergyman said we badly needed open and honest sex education and that the great curse of this country was hypocrisy (more applause). He said that he had worked in Manchester for ten years and that the social service worker ; there snent much of their time trying to solve the social problems which had been exported from Ireland, particularly girls who arrived there pregnant. The Catholic Church came in for an amount of criticism and the Catholic theologian wno spoke got a pretty rough reception. In the course of discussion a pathetic example was quoted of a woman who was afraid to go to confession for three years because her love making with her husband was not conducted in the orthodox position. It was suggested that the State should legislate for people as citizens, and not as Catho- lics or Protestants. It was pointed out that Church was now more lenient on the issue of annulments. Statistics of Catholic Annulments Rev. Professor Seamus Ryan gave the interesting piece of information that 45% of annulments granted in the Westminster diocese during 1972 were granted on the score of "due discretion" as opposed to tradi- tional grounds of non-consumation, etc. The Dublin diocese, he said, tended to follow the example of West- minster and there had been some annulments granted here on these grounds also. The interesting figure of 200 annulments considered out of 346 applications in the Dublin diocese last year emerged from the dis- cussion. He admitted that things were different outside Dublin. Forty-six applications had come to Dublin from the Cork area and had to be returned. In the experience of AIM, the problem of broken or difficult marriage is, if anything, greater outside Dublin. The majority of their letters come from outside Dublin and the biggest problem area is Cork county and city. Incidentally, when they tried to set up a branch of A IM in Cork only 25 people turned up. A IM feel that the need to remain anonymous and not to let the neighbours know of their problems is a big issue in the countryside.

Local Authorities' Sol icitors' Association Officers for 1974 Chairman : William Dundon, Law Agent, Dublin Corporation. Hon. Secretary and Treasurer : Dermot Loftus, Soli- citor, Dublin Corporation. Committee : Messrs Michael J. Leech, Law Agent, D ul1 Laoghaire Corporation; Timothy Murphy, Counti Solicitor, Kerry County Council; Donal M. K i ^ ' City Solicitor, Cork Corporation; Francis Keafl e | County Solicitor, Dublin County Council; Hen 1 ^ Murray, Law Agent, Dublin Port & Docks Board. 138