Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Appeals Court

2»

Comments

  • #52
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,549 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    My key question is as follows: Given the direct and secondary costs and complexity involved in setting up a new appeals court system, how does it make sense to do so to solve what seems primarily like a resource issue? Is there a concrete benefit, and if so what is it??

    I think some perspective is required. Although I have commented more on the Court of Appeal referendum, the Seanad one is by far the more important. I could live without a Court of Appeal if it meant we keep the Seanad.

    Yes, we need more judges at all levels. Without extra judges, the benefits of the court of appeal are minimal.

    I suppose your question is assuming there will be no extra judges either way, will the new court of itself be of benefit in disposing of appeals?

    In such a situation, the benefit will be less noticeable but will still be there. The Court of Appeal will in theory be able to deal with cases more quickly because unlike the Supreme Court if they make a mistake it is not permanent. So they can hear two cases in the same time the SC can hear one. This obviously means giving the case less care and attention than the current Supreme Court currently gives, but that is preferable than a practice developing whereby the Supreme Court is under pressure to dispose of cases promptly.


  • #53
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    After clarifying the stance on impeachment (with regard to the seanad referendum) I'm now more concerned about that same judge never becoming an appointee to the bench at the behest of the NEXT government...

    Presumably over time, dissentions, and stances against the state in major cases could build up to give a picture of a SC Judge's "form". As the government nominates judges for the president to appoint at it's sole discretion, usually upon it's election, i was concerned about the government picking and choosing judges who might give verdicts that are likely to suit it based on past form.
    I may be confused, but my understanding is that SC appointments are permanent. A judge who wrote a dissenting opinion would already be (ipso facto) a SC judge, and would have nothing to fear from the government.

    The government nominates judges for appointments to the SC, but the nominees haven't written any dissenting opinions for the SC (again, ipso facto), so I'm not clear on where the concern arises.

    It's possible I'm completely misunderstanding your concern (or some aspect of judicial appointments), so apologies if I appear to be labouring the point.


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I may be confused, but my understanding is that SC appointments are permanent. A judge who wrote a dissenting opinion would already be (ipso facto) a SC judge...

    Ok, my error in that case, I wasn't aware an appointment was permanent, short of any impeachment process occurring. There really isn't a reason for any concern if that's correct.

    Thanks! That will make things a lot easier on Friday. I appreciate the clarification.


  • #55
    Worztron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,788 ✭✭✭Worztron


    1. If the Appeals Court is created - will defeated cases still get passed onto the supreme court?
    2. Will extra staff be hired or will people be pulled from other places?
    3. How much extra will the new Appeals Court cost? I hope it wont be another gravy train for the law folk.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • #56
    234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    1.- The Court of Appeal would be the end of the line for the vast majority of cases. Only those of exceptional importance would go to the Supreme Court.

    2.- This hasn't been clarified. Realistically Ireland needs more judges. If you simply move people around without hiring new judges then the impact of the CA would be greatly diminished.

    3.- Nobody knows exactly how much it will cost. A figure of €3m has been floating around though I have no idea where it came from. I don't believe that it will be of any financial benefit to lawyers because cases are simply appealed to a different court. Instead of going to the SC as now happens you go to the CA. For nearly all cases that is the end of the line. So it's not adding another layer of work for lawyers. There are those who will disagree.


  • #57
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,515 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    234 wrote: »
    1.- The Court of Appeal would be the end of the line for the vast majority of cases. Only those of exceptional importance would go to the Supreme Court.

    As a matter of interest, who decides it is a case of exceptional importance? I am just unclear how that works, to me it just looks like a side step from the SC, creating a dual carriageway which merges back into a single lane later on down the line. A few people will turn off the dual carriageway at a point that they are satisfied but a volume who use it will continue onto the end of the dualler where it becomes a national road (ie the SC) again.

    Apologies for the road metaphors, just came to me.


  • #58
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    As a matter of interest, who decides it is a case of exceptional importance?
    The Supreme Court, I would imagine.


  • #59
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,515 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The Supreme Court, I would imagine.
    I presume they don't skim through the list and cross off the ones they don't think are important, it either gets put in front of them and the initial decision is upheld or not, so it is the same as it is now or will someone be appointed as an intermediary and review cases coming out of the new CoA who says yay or nay for going forwards. Or does the changes gove the ability for the CoA to say their decision is the final one whereby they become a mini SC. Sorry for all the queries so late in the day.


  • #60
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I presume they don't skim through the list and cross off the ones they don't think are important, it either gets put in front of them and the initial decision is upheld or not, so it is the same as it is now or will someone be appointed as an intermediary and review cases coming out of the new CoA who says yay or nay for going forwards. Or does the changes gove the ability for the CoA to say their decision is the final one whereby they become a mini SC. Sorry for all the queries so late in the day.
    RefCom's site says that the Supreme Court will decide which appeals to hear. To be fair, there's a substantial difference between the workload involved in deciding whether a case has "general public importance" and in actually hearing the appeal itself.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,515 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    RefCom's site says that the Supreme Court will decide which appeals to hear. To be fair, there's a substantial difference between the workload involved in deciding whether a case has "general public importance" and in actually hearing the appeal itself.

    Thanks, I suppose then the question is how is this decided? Is it in front of a few judges, is there a court appointed person to do this, it should be simple but this is Ireland. I would presume there will a list of requirements for the SC and someone goes through the list or a legal eagle has to submit a letter to the court appointed person explaining how this is a suitable case and then it is referred to the court if this is shown?


Advertisement