Solicitor quits over 'corruption in judiciary'

tayto lover

pirelli wrote: »

I could give dozens fo examples of unfair practices conducted through the irish courts. You can call it corruption or arrogance or what ever you like. The courts are controlled by the DPP and other powerful organisations, that hold sway over the courts. The individual has little chance against them and the services available to the poor man are usually not good.

Maybe you would give us a few examples then.
I would love to hear them. The poor man has the free legal aid scheme to help him, has he not?

Our man in Havana

The poor man has the free legal aid scheme to help him, has he not?

This is not available for cases where there is no risk of prison.
So there is nothing there to protect someone brought up on trumped up charges if there is no risk of jail.

tayto lover

Our man in Havana wrote: »

This is not available for cases where there is no risk of prison.
So there is nothing there to protect someone brought up on trumped up charges if there is no risk of jail.

Again i would like to see an example or an instance you talk about !!

Our man in Havana

Look in any district court in the land. Gardas word is always taken over that of a member of the public.

shaneybaby

Our man in Havana wrote: »

This is not available for cases where there is no risk of prison.
So there is nothing there to protect someone brought up on trumped up charges if there is no risk of jail.

Civil cases can qualify for legal aid, no risk of prison.
http://www.legalaidboard.ie/lab/publishing.nsf/content/Civil_legal_aid_faqs

Our man in Havana

I was referring to criminal cases.

There are risks of prison in certain civil cases and you can get free legal aid instantly in those cases.

The civil legal aid system is a joke.

shaneybaby

Our man in Havana wrote: »

The civil legal aid system is a joke.

Never actually ever come across someone using it actually which probably says enough really.

jakdelad

Deleted User wrote: »

Please Take Note of the Following:

In none of jakdelad or DUB777's posts have they given a single example of corruption. Not one. They have raised high profile cases, misinterpreted the contents of the Morris Reports and thrown muck at a judge who certainly was the subject of some serious questions about his private conduct but in terms of corruption neither have given a single example.

What we have been treated to is a series of off-hand comments, polemics and borderline defamatory statements which have muddied, but crucially never addressed, the issue at hand. Particularly the tribunal comment at the end of jakdelad's last post which is completely irrelevant.

I've a challenge for you jakdelad. Give me one actual example of judicial corruption in this country. Just one example. If you reply with anything other than that example or want to rant on about Moriarty or Morris then fine but it will just prove my point, that you are totally without basis in what you say.



On a side note I am happy to see that jakdelad realises he was totally incorrect about the judge's wages and clearly hasn't got a bean what he is talking about with regards Art. 35.5.
On the point of magistrates courts they are roughly the equivalent of our district courts and would never ever be in a position to hand out a sentence of 10 years to anyone, mandatory or not, as crimes of that severity are handled at a higher level by a Judge.

so you dont find it rather strange that since the existance of the state
not one judge has been offically sacked??? what does that tell you ?
all judges are perfect. while some gards, prison officers solicitors have been sacked.
there is no judge ombudsman these guys can basically do law wise what they want.......
where or how would you go to complain about a judge??
the whole system needs reform
when a garda can single handledy pick an inquest jury

without any process , that tells you something is wrong
by the way kayroo your not in court here
no need for grandstanding
i would remind you its called an opinion you dont have to agree with it.
ref to the muck at the judge come on step into the real world
the edvidence on disk was there the paperwork was the only thing wrong
you cant play poker with peoples liberties in court

freudian cock

234 wrote: »

Examples?

Ya know ya love it:p;):P

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

I could give dozens fo examples of unfair practices conducted through the irish courts. You can call it corruption or arrogance or what ever you like. The courts are controlled by the DPP and other powerful organisations, that hold sway over the courts. The individual has little chance against them and the services available to the poor man are usually not good.

You haven't given an example though, what you have done is give a polemic about "corruption" and even attempted to widen the definition to suit your, quite weak, argument.

The Courts are not controlled by the DPP. Anyone who spent any time in the Courts would know how totally laughable that suggestion is. The suggestion that they are beholden to the Minister for Justice is the only thing I can find that is more ridiculous.

Judges regularly savage Gardaí at all levels of the system if it is deserved. Similarly I have stood in Court and watched a Judge exercise an endless amount of patience in facilitating lay litigants who wish or by needs must defend themselves, granting them a necessary and absolutely just latitude that no legal professional would be afforded, or should be afforded.


A very good example of how facile the argument being put forward by you, jakdelad et al is can be seen in the few posts above this:

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe you would give us a few examples then.
I would love to hear them. The poor man has the free legal aid scheme to help him, has he not?

Our man in Havana wrote: »

This is not available for cases where there is no risk of prison.
So there is nothing there to protect someone brought up on trumped up charges if there is no risk of jail.

tayto lover wrote: »

Again i would like to see an example or an instance you talk about !!

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Look in any district court in the land. Gardas word is always taken over that of a member of the public.

Leaving aside the issue of legal aid, which is a separate one, the last post in particular is redolent of how weak an argument you are putting forth is. The last sentence highlighted above is nonsense. It is completely unprovable, beyond that if this was the case there would literally never be an acquittal in the District Court which is also clearly untrue.

I'm yet to read a single post from anyone here showing me one example of corruption.

jakdelad

jakdelad wrote: »

so you dont find it rather strange that since the existance of the state
not one judge has been offically sacked??? what does that tell you ?
all judges are perfect. while some gards, prison officers solicitors have been sacked.
there is no judge ombudsman these guys can basically do law wise what they want.......
where or how would you go to complain about a judge??
the whole system needs reform
when a garda can single handledy pick an inquest jury

without any process , that tells you something is wrong
by the way kayroo your not in court here
no need for grandstanding
i would remind you its called an opinion you dont have to agree with it.
ref to the muck at the judge come on step into the real world
the edvidence on disk was there the paperwork was the only thing wrong

Every time a judge has had cause to be sacked he has resigned instead. There is no defined procedure for removing a judge within the Constitution and rather than trigger a Constitutional crisis (separation of powers issue) the judges just step down if needs be. What that tells me is that judges are not perfect, they are human and make errors just as we all do but when it comes to protecting the Constitution they do the right thing.

If you want to complain about a judge you go to a higher Court. There are very good examples of cases where judges have been criticised over bias and despite their stringent objections that they were not the Superior Courts have ruled that, regardless of whether they are biased or not, the mere appearance of a possibility of bias to a reasonable person in the position of the party alleging bias will be enough to render a judge unable to hear a case. (Particularly I refer you to the empassioned decision of Carroll J in Dublin Wellwoman Centre and the Supreme Court judgment of Denham J). Judges are immensely careful not only to remain unbiased but to ensure that they are beyond even the appearance of a possibility of bias.

The sentence about the Garda is just another example of you using throw away comments that have nothing to do with the preceding point to muddy the waters.

I am not grandstanding and I am aware I am not in Court. However an opinion is a statement backed up by points of fact. I believe you are entitled to your opinion, so show me the facts upon which it is based. Just one example, that's all I have asked for and it is what you have continually refused to provide. Weaker and weaker your words become when the proof of them is not forthcoming.


I think what happened with the judge down in Kerry was a disgrace and should never have happened, the Gardaí should have ensured they got that information. I have never said otherwise. Now tell me how that shows corruption on the part of any member of the judiciary. You can't because it doesn't. Simple as that.

johnnyskeleton

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Look in any district court in the land. Gardas word is always taken over that of a member of the public.

That's what the circuit court is for.

tayto lover

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Look in any district court in the land. Gardas word is always taken over that of a member of the public.

It is clear to me that some posters have history with the gardai and judges and try to get even on threads like this BUT lads after all your posts i still do not see one shred of proof to back up your claims. Plenty of supposition and innuendo but NO proof at all.
Your case would be thrown out lads.

jakdelad

Deleted User wrote: »

Every time a judge has had cause to be sacked he has resigned instead. There is no defined procedure for removing a judge within the Constitution and rather than trigger a Constitutional crisis (separation of powers issue) the judges just step down if needs be. What that tells me is that judges are not perfect, they are human and make errors just as we all do but when it comes to protecting the Constitution they do the right thing.

If you want to complain about a judge you go to a higher Court. There are very good examples of cases where judges have been criticised over bias and despite their stringent objections that they were not the Superior Courts have ruled that, regardless of whether they are biased or not, the mere appearance of a possibility of bias to a reasonable person in the position of the party alleging bias will be enough to render a judge unable to hear a case. (Particularly I refer you to the empassioned decision of Carroll J in Dublin Wellwoman Centre and the Supreme Court judgment of Denham J). Judges are immensely careful not only to remain unbiased but to ensure that they are beyond even the appearance of a possibility of bias.

The sentence about the Garda is just another example of you using throw away comments that have nothing to do with the preceding point to muddy the waters.

I am not grandstanding and I am aware I am not in Court. However an opinion is a statement backed up by points of fact. I believe you are entitled to your opinion, so show me the facts upon which it is based. Just one example, that's all I have asked for and it is what you have continually refused to provide. Weaker and weaker your words become when the proof of them is not forthcoming.


I think what happened with the judge down in Kerry was a disgrace and should never have happened, the Gardaí should have ensured they got that information. I have never said otherwise. Now tell me how that shows corruption on the part of any member of the judiciary. You can't because it doesn't. Simple as that.

well well so your not a machine cloned from the kings inn
there is understandiing under that robe n wig
you want everything copperfastened..
tell me this o learned one
how is it a gard can pick a jury for an inquest? without a process or any training in the subject.....]]
give you an example of where it might slip up
a man found dead in the garda station
after all the investigations the inquest jury is handpicked by the garda,,
not good my friend

234

jakdelad wrote: »

well well so your not a machine cloned from the kings inn
there is understandiing under that robe n wig
you want everything copperfastened..
tell me this o learned one
how is it a gard can pick a jury for an inquest? without a process or any training in the subject.....]]
give you an example of where it might slip up
a man found dead in the garda station
after all the investigations the inquest jury is handpicked by the garda,,
not good my friend

That is completely irrelevant. Can you show proof on even one example of systemic judicial corruption?

jakdelad

jakdelad wrote: »

well well so your not a machine cloned from the kings inn
there is understandiing under that robe n wig
you want everything copperfastened..
tell me this o learned one
how is it a gard can pick a jury for an inquest? without a process or any training in the subject.....]]
give you an example of where it might slip up
a man found dead in the garda station
after all the investigations the inquest jury is handpicked by the garda,,
not good my friend

Well well my question dodging friend, I am happy to see you are still totally incapable of showing one single example of judicial corruption.

Come on now, let's stick to the point. Or shall you finally admit defeat?

tayto lover

An inquest jury is nearly always picked by the gardai. It is not the same as a jury in a court. It is just there to rubber stamp the decision of the coroner as far as i am aware. They have really no decisions to make on their own.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

An inquest jury is nearly always picked by the gardai. It is not the same as a jury in a court. It is just there to rubber stamp the decision of the coroner as far as i am aware. They have really no decisions to make on their own.

Also in the cases of death or serious injury in custody the ombudsman always conducts and inquiry separate of the Gardaí.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Also in the cases of death or serious injury in custody the ombudsman always conducts and inquiry separate of the Gardaí.

Yes Kayroo, we will educate them yet !!

Tom Young

I'm tempted to close this thread.

Fred Cohen

Deleted User wrote: »

Well well my question dodging friend, I am happy to see you are still totally incapable of showing one single example of judicial corruption.

Come on now, let's stick to the point. Or shall you finally admit defeat?

Does abuse of power count as corruption?

Tom Young

Tom Young wrote: »

I'm tempted to close this thread.

Just do it Tom. I'm sorry I ever got involved.

Fred Cohen wrote: »

Does abuse of power count as corruption?

No, it counts as abuse of power.

Tom Young

I agree with Kayroo. Malfeasance in public office might have been the expression you were looking for Fred Cohen. There is a difference.

Fred Cohen

Tom Young wrote: »

I agree with Kayroo. Malfeasance in public office might have been the expression you were looking for Fred Cohen. There is a difference.

Thanks for your reply. Could you explain in layman's terms (or point me to where I can learn) what the difference is?

Tom Young

Malfeasance in office is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.

Corruption can be defined as the misuse of public office for private gain. This involves putting personal interests above those of the people and ideals he or she is pledged to serve. It comes in many forms, is often subjective and can range in severity. Corruption can involve promises, threats or both.

Fred Cohen

Tom Young wrote: »

Malfeasance in office is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.

Corruption can be defined as the misuse of public office for private gain. This involves putting personal interests above those of the people and ideals he or she is pledged to serve. It comes in many forms, is often subjective and can range in severity. Corruption can involve promises, threats or both.

Thank you for that, it agrees with what I thought it to be.

Can I ask everybody's opinion on these reports of my local district court Judge?

SNIP

Also does boosting ones personnel ego amount to a gain?

Tom Young

No you can't. This forum is not to bash any judge, person or otherwise. It is not a Court of law and perhaps we could allow opinions be published.

I don't think that what has happened above on this thread has been constructive or played fairly.

We have seen the usual suspects arrive and scatter gun their baseless opinions (mostly) with a few other known to be sane and constructive contributors try and deal with their rants.

Time up. Thread closed. I will deal accordingly with any other thread that seeks to do the same.

Thanks,

Tom