1:19:10
l now call on Justice Ferris
to deliver his judgment.
1:19:14
l am persuaded by Mr. Wolfe's argument
on behalf of the Minister for Education...
1:19:20
that the term ''parent''...
1:19:22
in Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution...
1:19:25
must be held to imply both parents.
1:19:29
There is no contradiction
between those Articles...
1:19:31
and Section 10 of the Children's Act...
1:19:34
and said Act
is not repugnant to the Constitution.
1:19:39
l, therefore, find in favor of the defendant,
the Minister for Education.
1:19:45
l'll strangle that ferret one day.
1:19:49
lt's 1-0 to the Minister, with 2 votes to go.
1:19:53
The next Judge, Justice Daley,
must vote for Desmond...
1:19:56
or it's all over for the Doyles.
1:19:59
Don't despair, my child. Have faith.
1:20:02
...or there'll be rioting going on.
1:20:06
l agree with Mr. Wolfe...
1:20:10
that the Minister for Education has,
at all times...
1:20:13
acted in a reasonable
and conscientious manner...
1:20:16
within the provisions of the Children's Act.
1:20:19
l also agree with my learned
and honorable friend, Justice Ferris...
1:20:23
that there is no precedent for declaring...
1:20:25
an lrish Statute
repugnant to the Constitution...
1:20:28
-Please God, grant us a ''however.''
-...and therefore invalid.
1:20:34
However, despite the absence
of precedent...
1:20:37
l find Mr. Barron's argument persuasive.
1:20:41
ln any event, with respect to
my learned friend, Mr. Ferris...
1:20:44
it is the duty of the Supreme Court...
1:20:46
not only to follow precedent...
1:20:49
but to set it.
1:20:51
On the grounds submitted...
1:20:54
that the Children's Act 1941, Section 10...
1:20:57
contravenes a parent's fundamental,
God-given right...
1:20:59
to the society of his children...