“The objective of the impugned provision must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right. It must relate to concerns pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society. The means chosen must pass a proprtionality test. They must:-
(a) be rationally connected to the objective and not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;
(b) impair the right as little as possible, and
(c) be such that their effects on rights are proportional to the objective.”
The Supreme Court in Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill,  2 I.R. 321 described the proportionality test in the following terms at p. 383:-
“In effect a form of proportionality test must be applied to the proposed section.
(a) Is it rationally designed to meet the objective of the legislation?
(b) Does it intrude into constitutional rights as little as is reasonably possible?
(c) Is there a proportionality between the section and the right to trial in due course of law and the objective of the legislation?”
- Proportionality of sentencing