Relates to case of Bernadette Harvey, a widow, who lost her pension as a blind person when she became eligible for the old age pension at 66, as they were deemed to be the same thing except that former pension was payable earlier. Significance of case is reflected in the fact that it required an amendment to be introduced in the Social Welfare Act 1989. Judgement in the Supreme Court was given 10/05/1989, and costs were awarded on 06/07/1989 for both High and Supreme Court hearings.

Mary Robinson worked as Senior Counsel, and material is arranged across two files.

This case relates to unequal application of unemployment and pay-related benefit to married women in comparison with married/single men and single women. Tricia Lang was paid unemployment benefit and pay-related benefit for 312 days from date of initial payment, rather than 390 days which was applicable in case of married/single men and single women, she received a lower rate of payment of unemployment benefit than applicable for married/single men and single women and was only entitled to receive Unemployment Assistance on a more restrictive and discriminatory basis.

Case was adjourned, April 1990, on basis of offer of £500 to Tricia Lang and her husband in settlement of part of claim relating to unemployment assistance and ceiling on married couples, and adjournment of remainder of case and question of legal costs pending outcome of decisions in Cotter & McDermott and Emmott (P143/1/2/34). Final outcome of case unknown. See also P143/1/2/37.

Mary Robinson worked as Senior Counsel, and material is arranged across 2 files.

Case relates to retrospective claims following ruling in European Court of Justice in 1988. Ann Carberry claimed she was entitled to receive transitional payments given by the Irish Government after the European Community equality directive on social welfare treatment was implemented in 1986. Case was settled in 1991 but outcome unknown.

Mary Robinson worked as Senior Counsel (SC) on this case. However, once she was inaugurated as President of Ireland on 4th December 1990, it is unlikely she continued as SC. Material is arranged across 2 files.

This case relates to Mrs Theresa Emmott endeavouring to retrospectively recover benefits which had not been paid to her since a European Community Directive came into effect on 23 December 1984, the Irish government's attempts to plead that the her delay in initiating proceedings constituted a bar to her claim and the European Court of Justice judgement that domestic limitation periods could not begin until a Directive had been properly transposed.

Mrs Emmott is married and has two dependent children. As from 2 December 1983 she received a disability benefit under the Irish social security legislation. Until 18 May 1986 she received that benefit only at the reduced rate applicable, at that time, to all married women. Following amendments to the Irish legislation, her benefit was adjusted three times. From 19 May 1986 she received a benefit at the rate applicable to a man or woman but without any increases for dependent children. It was only from 17 November 1986 that those increases were granted to her. Finally, in June 1988 she was granted, with retroactive effect to 28 January 1988, an invalidity pension calculated at the personal rate normally applicable to a man or woman, together with an increase for dependent children.

Mary Robinson worked as Senior Counsel on this case until her inauguration as President of Ireland when Mary Finlay replaced her as counsel, and material is arranged across two files.

Pine Valley bought land for development on reliance of outline planning permission but was then refused planning permission on grounds land was not suitable. Incurred massive losses and blamed Government for negligence (essentially land was misrepresented as being suitable for development when had been earmarked for agricultural use to retain green belt - planning permission had been granted to previous owner of land on appeal). Case went to High Court and Supreme Court before going to European Commission of Human Rights who then sent it to European Court of Human Rights. In November 1991 judgement dismissed Government's case.

[Archivist's Note: Mary Robinson (MR) was Senior Counsel from when it went to the Commission but passed to co-Senior Counsel when it was heard in European Court (May 1991), following her inauguration as President of Ireland. File is incomplete and does not extend beyond Sep 1990.]

Material in this file consists of correspondence between MR and Gerard H. Walsh, solicitor, case documents (legal) with notation, handwritten case notes and research material. It includes European Commission of Human Rights Decision on admissibility for application of Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others against Ireland, with cover letter from Michael [O'Boyle?], 08/11/1989; draft copies of Response of Applicants to the Additional Observations of the government of Ireland, with notation [1989/1990?]; Copy of Observations of the Government of Ireland on the Applicants' Response to the Additional Observations of the Government of Ireland, with cover letter from HC Kruger, Secretary to the European commission of Human Rights, 12/02/1990; European Commission of Human Rights report on Application, adopted 06/06/1990 with Request from CA Norgaard, President of the European Commission of Human Rights, to the European Court of Human Rights, 01/07/1990 and cover letter from Kruger, 10/07/1990; correspondence relating to Government's own application to European Court of Human Rights 13-18/09/1990; final letter on file from Walsh to MR reporting the tentative date for hearing as 23/05/1991 and hoping that she is no longer involved in the case by that time, referring to MR's Presidential election campaign 21/09/1990.

The Guildford Four and Maguire Seven were the collective names of two groups whose convictions in English courts in 1975 and 1976 for the Guildford pub bombings of 5 October 1974 were eventually quashed after long campaigns for justice. The Guildford Four were wrongly convicted of bombings carried out by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA); the Maguire Seven were wrongly convicted of handling explosives found during the investigation into the bombings. Both groups' convictions were eventually declared "unsafe and unsatisfactory" and reversed in 1989 and 1991 respectively after they had served up to 15–16 years in prison.

The Birmingham Six were six Irishmen who were each sentenced to life imprisonment in 1975 following their false convictions for the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings. Their convictions were declared unsafe and unsatisfactory and quashed by the Court of Appeal on 14 March 1991. The six men were later awarded financial compensation ranging from £840,000 to £1.2 million.

Material is arranged across three files: P143/1/2/36/1 relates to the Annie Maguire case, P143/1/2/36/2 relates to the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford Four cases and P143/1/2/36/3 consists of related cuttings.

[Archivist's note 1: It is unclear how much involvement Mary Robinson had in these cases apart from giving legal opinion on Annie Maguire case, giving interviews on behalf of the Birmingham 6 and chairing public events. It is clear she followed the cases closely.

Note 2: Regina in Law means Queen and represents UK Crown or State in case].

Material in this file relates to two cases Mary Robinson (MR) was working on simultaneously as Senior Counsel, both of which were v Minister for Social Welfare, and both of which were affected by the judgement in another case: Mrs Cotter & Mrs McDermott v Minister for Social Welfare. It is unclear from the limited documents on file whether this case was settled or went to appeal following the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Cotter & McDermott case. MR is elected President of Ireland prior to date of last correspondence in this file.

It consists of correspondence between MR and Aidan Reynolds, Gallagher Shatter solicitors and The Chief State Solicitor 21/08/1989-28/12/1990 and copies of plenary summons for both Austin & others v Minister of Social Welfare and Harvey & others v Min of Social Welfare, 20/05/1985.

Case and material in this file relate to applicant, Patrick Cannon, a fisherman of Killybegs, County Donegal, who had bought a trawler based on presumption he would be given licence and was then refused, due to delays and series of events which saw him purchasing a different vessel. The respondent as Minister for the Marine, has responsibility for licensing sea-fishing boats pursuant to the provisions of the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1983.

On 1st July, 1986 the respondent granted the applicant a licence for the MFV "Grampian Castle", a trawler of 150 feet length overall. On that date the applicant was in the course of purchasing the vessel, but he discovered cost of making boat sea-worthy would be substantially more than he had anticipated. He decided not to proceed with the purchase and in late 1986 he informed an official of the Department of Fisheries of that fact and that he proposed to seek another suitable vessel. The applicant was concerned that difficulties might arise regarding the granting of a sea-fishing boat licence for whatever alternative vessel he might wish to purchase and sought an assurance from the Department that a licence would be granted in respect of alternative vessel. Later in November, 1986 the applicant applied for a licence for MFV "Master Surveyor" but someone else purchased the vessel ahead of him. Nothing further happened until January, 1989 when the applicant wanted to purchase MFV "Bentley Queen" . The applicant contacted his local public representative, Mr. Pat "The Cope" Gallagher, who at that time was the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, regarding obtaining a licence for that vessel. He was told, considering the time lapsed that he would need to apply for a new licence.... this was eventually refused as policy had changed.

Justice Barr's judgement, 01/01/1991: "Taking all of these factors into account, I am of opinion that the concession on behalf of the respondent contained in the letter of 6th November, 1986 had expired prior to January, 1989 when the applicant first became interested in the "Bentley Queen". Therefore, the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant a licence for that vessel was neither unfair or unjust ...It follows that the only relief to which the applicant may be entitled is damages arising out of the respondent's failure to decide on the application for a licence for the "Bentley Queen" within a reasonable time, i.e., not later than 31st August, 1989. I do not have evidence on which to determine whether the applicant has suffered any loss by reason of the respondent's delay and, if so, to assess that loss. These issues should go to plenary hearing."

While Cannon was partly successful in the High Court and obtained an order for his costs, it is unclear from the limited documents on file what the final outcome of this case was, but Mary Robinson (MR), Senior Counsel, had returned case files in December 1990 so that another Senior Counsel could be instructed, should Cannon wish to appeal, following MR's election and inauguration as President of Ireland.

Material in the file consists of correspondence between MR and Aidan Reynolds of Gallagher Shatter solicitors, 21/02/1990-28/12/1990 including correspondence from Brendan Cahill, Department of the Marine 18/05/1990 and correspondence relating to fees; case documents (legal) including draft Notice of Motion, draft Affidavit of Patrick Cannon and draft Statement, 16/02/1990, Brief for Counsel, 13/03/1990; Statement of Opposition, 20/04/1990; Affidavit of Brendan Cahill, 22/05/1990; handwritten case notes; background material relating to case including photocopies of Commission of European Communities decision, 23/11/1988, on the Multiannual Guidance Programme for the fishing fleet (1987-1991), photocopies of parliamentary questions 25/10/1989 and photocopy of letter from JF Doyle, Secretary General, Irish fishermen's Organisation to John Moloney, Secretary, Sea-Fishing Licencing Review Group, Department of the Marine, 16/11/1989.

This subseries consists of three files relating to cases where the documentation is incomplete and/or the outcome unknown.

This file consists of material related to Mary Robinson (MR)'s work on behalf of petitioners in Lawrence v Texas and includes letter from Harold Hongju Koh, Counsel of Record and Professor of International Law, Yale Law School, to MR referencing Brief submitted on her behalf in Lawrence v Texas, 23/01/2003; photocopy of Confidential draft of Brief Amici Curiae "No. 02-102 in the Supreme Court of the United States October Term 2002 - John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners, v State of Texas, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District Brief Amici Curiae of [Mary Robinson], Amnesty International..." [[2002/3?] 16/01/2003 is date on cover but this is part of draft which is possibly penultimate draft]; green booklet published by Counsel Press of official Brief Amici Curiae: "No. 02-102 in the Supreme Court of the United States - John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners, v State of Texas, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals Of Texas, Fourteenth District Brief Amici Curiae of Mary Robinson, Amnesty International U.S.A., Human Rights Watch, Interights, The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights in Support of Petitioners...", and photocopy of same, filed 16/01/2003, with cover letter from Harold Koh; print out of email from Harold Koh to MR "Lawrence concurrence and dissents", 26/06/2003 including print outs of attached pdfs which contained opinions of Justice Thomas (dissenting), Justice Scalia (dissenting) and Justice O'Connor (concurring); email print out from Joshua Kaplan, Yale, to MR, Harold Koh, and others in relation to his reaction to judgement and noting that Justice Kennedy had cited the Dudgeon case including in his summary of the decision in court that morning, 26/06/2003; letter, and photocopy of same, from Senator Edward Kennedy congratulating MR on her "brilliant work on behalf of the petitioners" and mentioning that her own "trail-blazing experience with the Norris case helped bring about necessary change in Ireland and [that he was] delighted that [her] assistance in this case has helped with [their] own law on this matter", 21/07/2003, with photocopy of letter of thanks from MR noting the breakthrough of having "the case law of the European Court of Human Rights cited as a persuasive authority" and referencing her new project the Ethical Globalization Initiative - Realizing Rights, 01/08/2003.