Judgment: 2025-10-20 · Court archive

High Court strikes out Niall Byrne challenge to 2025 presidential nomination process

High Court · [2025] IEHC 565

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Niall Byrne
  • Simon Harris
  • Mr Justice Cregan
What

High Court strikes out Niall Byrne challenge to 2025 presidential nomination process

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 5 September 2025

    Byrne had declared himself an independent presidential candidate on 5 September 2025. He argued that a direction from Simon Harris, acting as Fine Gael leader, discouraging Fine Gael councillors from supporting independent nominations amounted to unconstitutional interference with local government and undermined the presidential nomination process.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 20 October 2025, Mr Justice Cregan held that Byrne’s proceedings were either not justiciable — meaning they concerned political choices the courts could not determine — or were legally unstateable and bound to fail.

The High Court has struck out Niall Byrne’s attempt to challenge the 2025 presidential nomination process and stop the election from proceeding.

In a judgment delivered on 20 October 2025, Mr Justice Cregan held that Byrne’s proceedings were either not justiciable — meaning they concerned political choices the courts could not determine — or were legally unstateable and bound to fail.

Byrne had declared himself an independent presidential candidate on 5 September 2025. He argued that a direction from Simon Harris, acting as Fine Gael leader, discouraging Fine Gael councillors from supporting independent nominations amounted to unconstitutional interference with local government and undermined the presidential nomination process.

He also sought declarations that the nomination system itself was unconstitutional, that the election process should be rerun and, alternatively, that he should be regarded as the only validly nominated candidate and elected without a vote.

The court rejected those arguments.

Mr Justice Cregan found that party instructions concerning how councillors should approach presidential nominations were political rather than legal decisions. He also held that Article 28A, which gives constitutional recognition to local government, did not prevent political parties from issuing guidance to their members.

The judgment further held that Article 12.4 provides the constitutional mechanism for presidential nominations: ordinarily, a candidate requires support from at least 20 members of the Oireachtas or four local authorities. Byrne had obtained neither and was therefore not a validly nominated candidate.

The court said a claim that Article 12.4 was itself unconstitutional could not succeed because different provisions of the Constitution must be read together rather than one being used to invalidate another.

Although Byrne had standing to bring the proceedings and was not found guilty of undue delay, those findings did not alter the outcome. His case was struck out under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review