Central Criminal Court jurisdiction

johnnyskeleton

Should the central criminal courts jurisdiction be extended to cover the most serious types of drug dealing, fraud, sexual abuse of minors etc, firearms?

It seems to me that if you are up for an offence and it is so serious that even with no previous and on a guilty plea you could face 10 years or more that you should be tried in the highest criminal trial court in the land.

They extended the jurisdiction to cover competition offences. Why is a used car sales cartel more serious than a million euro bank fraud or a top level drugs operation?

Also, could membership offences for underlings be transferred to the central if the risks to the jury were minimal?

Pro Hoc Vice

What's the benefit. It would require a lot more High Court Judges, it would also require that they would go out on circuit adding more costs. Circuit Courts are more than able to deal with serious cases, I am not aware of any issue with serious drugs cases or sexual assaults being compromised due to being heard in the Circuit Court.

Bepolite

You should contact a solicit... hang on a minute - an actual legal discussion! :pac:

I think the issue is the disparity between the civil and criminal jurisdictions of the CC. The civil jurisdiction, although it's now being increased, is woefully low and undervalues the work done there IMHO. I don't know why but I've always thought a formula somewhere along the lines of the average wage x the average sentence would be where the civil jurisdiction should be but thats just an odd thought that pops into my, largely empty, head.

Another thought along a similar line is that I'd like to see the jurisdiction split more along the lines of violent and non-violent offences, with the former going to the High Court and the latter to the Circuit. Obviously a massive fraud case would go to the High Court and Section 3 assaults would remain in the Circuit. I think it would send a clear message that violent crime is taken more seriously. Again a mere musing.

Victor

I'm wondering should we do away with the circuit court and have district, high, appeal and supreme courts?

District = summary prosecutions and civil cases of up to, say €100,000
High = indictments and civil cases of over, say €100,000

Bepolite wrote: »

I think it would send a clear message that violent crime is taken more seriously.

Is there too much focus on the crimes of poorer people (violence, theft) and not enough focus on the overall implications (personal, financial and societal) of the crime?

Bepolite

Victor wrote: »

Is there too much focus on the crimes of poorer people (violence, theft) and not enough focus on the overall implications (personal, financial and societal) of the crime?

Excellent point but again I link in aspects of the civil jurisdiction. In the cases of pure economic loss courts are slower to award damages than in the case of physical injury. Thats not to say I don;t think non-violent offenders should not be punished, they should be. In the case of large scale white collar crime this should be dealt with very seriously indeed.

johnnyskeleton

infosys wrote: »

What's the benefit. It would require a lot more High Court Judges, it would also require that they would go out on circuit adding more costs. Circuit Courts are more than able to deal with serious cases, I am not aware of any issue with serious drugs cases or sexual assaults being compromised due to being heard in the Circuit Court.

The main benefit is a recognition of the seriousness of the offences. That's why rape was taken out of the circuit court and lut into the central in the 80s.

Also, while not saying that circuit court judges are not able to handle it, obviously high court judges are in a better position as the most senior trial judges. I think Mr Justice Carney made the point a few years ago that some of the non-murder gangland stuff should be dealt with at central level.

I understand that in the UK the nature of the case rather than the type of offence, can effect the level of court that hears it, although I may be wrong on that.

Maybe the circuit, as a court of local and limited jurisdiction should have a maximum penalty of say 10 years and so a really serious sexual assault or causing serious harm could go up to the central

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

I'm wondering should we do away with the circuit court and have district, high, appeal and supreme courts?

District = summary prosecutions and civil cases of up to, say €100,000
High = indictments and civil cases of over, say €100,000

How about we have a court below that of district court for fine only offences dealt with by lay magistrates and with no legal aid etc, then a district court of three judges that deals with more serious summary matters up to say 3 years imprisonment (ala continental system) then serious indictable jury trials up to 10 years in the circuit and if you land in the central then your goose is cooked!

All, with the exception of the magistrate level, would have an appeal to the cca on a point of law or additional evidence only.

Bepolite

Would magistrates not be a massive cultural hot potato here?

Pro Hoc Vice

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How about we have a court below that of district court for fine only offences dealt with by lay magistrates and with no legal aid etc, then a district court of three judges that deals with more serious summary matters up to say 3 years imprisonment (ala continental system) then serious indictable jury trials up to 10 years in the circuit and if you land in the central then your goose is cooked!

All, with the exception of the magistrate level, would have an appeal to the cca on a point of law or additional evidence only.

We currently have the 3rd cheapest courts system in the wider European Area, district court matter are heard very quickly, indictments in Cork for example are heard very fast in fact most cases are now heard in the sessions they are returned too.

If advocating a change in the system it would be important to first show the current system does not work. My view is the system is cheap, it works efficiently and by and large gets it right. So why change.

BTW legal aid is very very rarely given in cases that can only get a fine.

johnnyskeleton

infosys wrote: »

We currently have the 3rd cheapest courts system in the wider European Area,

All the more reason to spend some extra money on it. You wouldn't want us to run out of justice like we did with hospital beds, now would you?

district court matter are heard very quickly, indictments in Cork for example are heard very fast in fact most cases are now heard in the sessions they are returned too.

Maybe too quickly, if a judge is expected to hear several cases in a hour, how much time can he/she really give to considering the evidence and the law?

If advocating a change in the system it would be important to first show the current system does not work. My view is the system is cheap, it works efficiently and by and large gets it right. So why change.

I think summary justice can be a bit too swift in this country, with some issues such as disclosure, legal submission, procedural issues etc being dealt with too quickly.

BTW legal aid is very very rarely given in cases that can only get a fine.

My point is that if you were in a court for fines only you could have a streamlined procedure.

Pro Hoc Vice

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All the more reason to spend some extra money on it. You wouldn't want us to run out of justice like we did with hospital beds, now would you?



Maybe too quickly, if a judge is expected to hear several cases in a hour, how much time can he/she really give to considering the evidence and the law?



I think summary justice can be a bit too swift in this country, with some issues such as disclosure, legal submission, procedural issues etc being dealt with too quickly.



My point is that if you were in a court for fines only you could have a streamlined procedure.

A lot of maybe and I think but no example of any issues. Summary matters should normally be quick, if a plea and DJ's have and do spend hours hearing cases if necessary. Again I don't see any problem.