Supreme Court Appeal [READ POST 115 BEFORE POSTING]

tonysopprano

Listed for Mention Thur 14/01/10 (Chief-Justice)
Listed for Hearing Mon 25/01/10 (Chief-Justice, Justices Denham and Hardiman)

As pere Legal Diary

rowa

can you give us any details or an outline of the case ?

Sparks

Not until afterwards he can't, the case is sub judice!

rowa

ok .

Sparks

Soon as it's over though rowa, full details (I think everyone wants to see the outcome of this one).


edit: (In case you didn't know the case, this is the appeal of the charleton judgement from last year)

rowa

yeah i went onto courts.ie and did a search so i got the jist of it , fingers crossed .

ironsight

Forgive me if I have this out of context, but this makes interesting if not complicated reading.

http://www.mcdermottroe.com/shooting/law/#ref-1-1998-09-03-39

Anyway, fingers crossed for you all

rrpc

This is the actual link to the High Court Case which is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

As with all such appeals it has a very narrow focus and will in all probability mean very little to most of us. The majority of the law that this is based on is superceded now.

Bananaman

Yet is was the basis of much of the justification given by the Minister for introducing some of the more draconian aspects of the firearms sections of the Criminal Justice (Misc. Provisions) bill - not that he'll give a hoot if it is overturned.

B'Man

ironsight

Come on it's after 6 PM back in Dear Old Ireland....

Any News, I'm positively salivating with anticipation.

These have to be the slowest and longest lasting few days of the calendar so far this year

dCorbus

Hey ironsight, there probably won't be any news on here about this until after the hearing and supreme court decision (Ref. sparks moderator post above - sub judice and all that:rolleyes:):

Supreme Court Appeal
Listed for Mention Thur 14/01/10 (Chief-Justice)
Listed for Hearing Mon 25/01/10 (Chief-Justice, Justices Denham and Hardiman)

As pere Legal Diary

That's in the legal diary for Monday 25th Jan.
So you'll have to wait til then with baited breath and even more salivatious anticipation, like the rest of us!:D

ironsight

What news or conjecture has come from today's "Mention" in the esteemed Supreme Court?

meathshooter

anyone know what time its listed for on the 25th is it morning or afternoon as there are other cases on that day,would like to sit in on the procedings

Dvs

The hearing is listed for 11 am,
all the cases are related to the same subject matter as far as I know.
and would be of equal interest.

Dvs

meathshooter1

just to bump it up tomorrow is the day

BornToKill

I think it's pushed back to the next term.

meathshooter1

BornToKill wrote: »

I think it's pushed back to the next term.

dont say that have appeal in march

BornToKill

Legal diary.

meathshooter1

its off the list allright

rowa

does it have any actual bearing on the legal cases coming before the district courts now anyway ?

Sparks

It shouldn't because it applies to a case that took place prior to the 2006CJA and 2009 Misc.Provisions act, but it may well be taken by DC justices as setting a tone for such judgements.
Not to mention, it's worth it to get Charleton's rather unpleasant words overruled.

Tricky1127

I don`t understand why any one on what ever side of it would want to have it pushed back...???

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

It shouldn't because it applies to a case that took place prior to the 2006CJA and 2009 Misc.Provisions act, but it may well be taken by DC justices as setting a tone for such judgements.
Not to mention, it's worth it to get Charleton's rather unpleasant words overruled.

yeah, but you can't un-ring the bell sparks , the horse is bolted and the damage is done , ahern used charltons quote several times running up his ban .

Sparks

I know rowa, but it might make things easier with the next Minister...

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

I know rowa, but it might make things easier with the next Minister...

or worse knowing our luck ,

tonysopprano

Adjourned to next term. No date set.

cavan shooter

Unfortunately it would not be deemed as a high priority, you find that in relation to appeals all the "criminal" stuff will get precedent, over the non criminal. We couldnt have a fella doing a 6 year stretch saying his human rights were violated because he should only be doing a 3 year stretch:(

sfakiaman

cavan shooter wrote: »

Unfortunately it would not be deemed as a high priority, you find that in relation to appeals all the "criminal" stuff will get precedent, over the non criminal. We couldnt have a fella doing a 6 year stretch saying his human rights were violated because he should only be doing a 3 year stretch:(

It's more likely that a government minister has "let it be known" that any judgement should held over till the restricted appeals have been decided.

cavan shooter

sfakiaman wrote: »

It's more likely that a government minister has "let it be known" that any judgement should held over till the restricted appeals have been decided.

From my experience that type of request would that would have to be agreed by both sides, so has it

BornToKill

sfakiaman wrote: »

It's more likely that a government minister has "let it be known" that any judgement should held over till the restricted appeals have been decided.

From what I heard, I think you have the wrong end of the stick. It was the appellant's side requested it be deferred.

meathshooter1

case is put back till april