Are Judges Beyond Criticism?

Wheelnut

I have often wondered is it illegal to criticise a judge or query a court judgement in this country. Over the years I have seen many strange things in court (especially in the District Court) but I have never seen any criticism of anything that has happened. Compare that with what happens if a public figure even makes the slightest gaff, there is an immediate frenzy for his/her resignation. I am asking this here because I see a thread which might have lead to criticism of a court has been closed after two posts today.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057080620
I stress that I am not trying to re-open this thread by the back door and I don't want anyone to comment on the content of the thread, just tell me the status of our judges in relation to criticism/comments/queries etc.

Pro Hoc Vice

It's why we have the appeal system. So most errors are fixable.

234

There is the old common law offence of scandalising the court. It essentially involves criticism of a court or judge that calls the administration of justice into question. I think that the last reported case on this was in the 1940s at some point.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rContempt.htm

Carawaystick

Paul Carney gets criticized from time to time when he hands out his sentences, and he changed his mind re a sex abuse case where he let a convict out on bail about a year ago.

There was the Perrin judge who shipped a bit of criticism after she was convicted, before she resigned...

I think Liam Lawlor gave Alan Mahon a repeated doing over his tax dodging(Mahon's).

johnnyskeleton

Factor in as well that a lot of people understand that if they haven't seen what happened in court they can't criticise it.

Imagine if someone were to criticise a football manager without having seen the match.

Wheelnut

234 wrote: »

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rContempt.htm

Was that report ever acted upon? I've read the section on Scandalising the Court, are things still the same?

234

No idea. As far as I know it's very rare for anybody to be charged.

Manach

Then again, hard to see a match when the cameras are not allowed into the action area. I find that academics are fairly quick with praise and blame for individual Judges, though given the latter is more Monday morning refereeing safe in the knowledge that the subject of said criticism will usually not influence their career.

234

Manach wrote: »

Then again, hard to see a match when the cameras are not allowed into the action area. I find that academics are fairly quick with praise and blame for individual Judges, though given the latter is more Monday morning refereeing safe in the knowledge that the subject of said criticism will usually not influence their career.

The distinction being that, with the possible exception of a few Gavin-Murphy J decisions, academics criticise reasoning rather than people.

Agree re the camera. If the English Court of Appeal can manage it without democracy crumbling we should at least televise Supreme Court hearings.

Bepolite

You have to distinguish between courts of limited jurisdiction like the District and Circuit courts and the High and Supreme Court. Given your linked thread lets look at the DC.

The DC is a clearing house as such, quick decisions based on whats in front of the judge. The DC is frequently criticised for being little fiefdoms but whats the alternate? Would you have preferred a half day trial with experts called to recommend the appropriate fine? We'd probably only need a 5% raise in income tax to properly fund the court system, I'm all for it obviously.

If there is a judge in the DC that has gone off the reservation it would be quickly picked up due to the number of appeals to the Circuit Court. As it stands yes a judge is probably going to look at someone with a nice car and give them a bigger fine, that's just a common sense judgment designed to make it hurt you as much as a smaller fine hurts someone driving a decade old Micra. As for cases being struck out, again every case is different.

Wheelnut

I also agree re cameras, even if a camera were only allowed into the front hall of the Four Courts to see what is really going on most people would be inclined to revolt. However that is a little removed from what I started the thread about.

For example (and this is very loose) there was a recent case in the midlands where a person was accused of aggressive begging (I don't know what the offence is called) Instead of convicting or dismissing the case, the judge gave the person €400 from the court poor-box. For a couple of months before, the local papers had reported differences between the judge and the Garda Superintendent about these cases being brought before the court. A person could be forgiven for thinking that the judge went outside his remit just to put the superintendent in his place. The same judge has also made some other strange statements which at best are not politically correct, but there have been no criticisms, no opinion pieces in the Sunday newspapers and no calls for a resignation.

The above is only one example and is not my sole reason for asking my basic question, are judges beyond criticism? An earlier judge in the same part of the country was famous for saying controversial things and filled many a page for reporters, but his correctness was never questioned even though many of his decisions were based on the things he said.

However, I don't want this thread to be a debate about my examples, the examples are only to illustrate my question.

Bepolite

Wheelnut wrote: »

I also agree re cameras, even if a camera were only allowed into the front hall of the Four Courts to see what is really going on most people would be inclined to revolt. However that is a little removed from what I started the thread about.

You've lost me right here to be honest. A few barristers walking around in capes is hardly likely to cause a revolt.

Do you want to try and clarify your point because the rest of what you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

234

Wheelnut wrote: »

I also agree re cameras, even if a camera were only allowed into the front hall of the Four Courts to see what is really going on most people would be inclined to revolt. However that is a little removed from what I started the thread about.

For example (and this is very loose) there was a recent case in the midlands where a person was accused of aggressive begging (I don't know what the offence is called) Instead of convicting or dismissing the case, the judge gave the person €400 from the court poor-box. For a couple of months before, the local papers had reported differences between the judge and the Garda Superintendent about these cases being brought before the court. A person could be forgiven for thinking that the judge went outside his remit just to put the superintendent in his place. The same judge has also made some other strange statements which at best are not politically correct, but there have been no criticisms, no opinion pieces in the Sunday newspapers and no calls for a resignation.

The above is only one example and is not my sole reason for asking my basic question, are judges beyond criticism? An earlier judge in the same part of the country was famous for saying controversial things and filled many a page for reporters, but his correctness was never questioned even though many of his decisions were based on the things he said.

However, I don't want this thread to be a debate about my examples, the examples are only to illustrate my question.

To an extent judges actually do need to have a kind of immunity in respect of some of this stuff; in terms of loosing their position rather than having to apologise.

They need to be sure of the security of their position so that they can make decisions that are purely in accordance with the law and the demands of justice.

If a judge felt that he was in some way threatened by public opprobrium then he might be inclined to make populist decisions even if they were not entirely correct. You just have to look to cases like CC v Ireland and A v Ireland to see rapists having convictions invalidated in a way that would have the media howling for blood. Nevertheless, it was the right decision.

An unfortunate byproduct of this can be that a few judges loose touch and come out with some whacky decisions or bewildering statements. However, there is always an appeal there to preserve the rights of the parties to the case.

Valentine1

My Comments in Blue.

Wheelnut wrote: »

I also agree re cameras, even if a camera were only allowed into the front hall of the Four Courts to see what is really going on most people would be inclined to revolt. However that is a little removed from what I started the thread about.

Really I walked through there twice yesterday morning and saw nothing that inspired me to revolution

For example (and this is very loose) there was a recent case in the midlands where a person was accused of aggressive begging (I don't know what the offence is called) Instead of convicting or dismissing the case, the judge gave the person €400 from the court poor-box. For a couple of months before, the local papers had reported differences between the judge and the Garda Superintendent about these cases being brought before the court. A person could be forgiven for thinking that the judge went outside his remit just to put the superintendent in his place. The same judge has also made some other strange statements which at best are not politically correct, but there have been no criticisms, no opinion pieces in the Sunday newspapers and no calls for a resignation.

umm any chance of a reference for this? otherwise I'm going to assume a bloke in the pub told you about it.

The above is only one example and is not my sole reason for asking my basic question, are judges beyond criticism? An earlier judge in the same part of the country was famous for saying controversial things and filled many a page for reporters, but his correctness was never questioned even though many of his decisions were based on the things he said.

No, Judges are not above criticism, they are frequently criticized in the press and their decisions can be reversed by a higher court if they are incorrectly decided.

However, I don't want this thread to be a debate about my examples, the examples are only to illustrate my question.

your question is very simple and your examples more than a little vague.

Wheelnut

Bepolite wrote: »

You've lost me right here to be honest. A few barristers walking around in capes is hardly likely to cause a revolt.

Do you want to try and clarify your point because the rest of what you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yes, I should have been more specific but as I said, I was trying not to get too far from the original question. What I had in mind was numerous trips I made to the Four Courts when I was involved in public liability cases. On the first Tuesday morning there would be literally a couple of hundred people hanging around. A large percentage would be expert witnesses such as doctors and engineers and all were wasting their time waiting to see if their cases would get on. I always felt it was the sort of waste that drives people mad.

Bepolite

Wheelnut wrote: »

Yes, I should have been more specific but as I said, I was trying not to get too far from the original question. What I had in mind was numerous trips I made to the Four Courts when I was involved in public liability cases. On the first Tuesday morning there would be literally a couple of hundred people hanging around. A large percentage would be expert witnesses such as doctors and engineers and all were wasting their time waiting to see if their cases would get on. I always felt it was the sort of waste that drives people mad.

So your issue is with the list system? Well I would tend to agree but I'm interested to hear what your solution would be?

Wheelnut

Valentine! wrote:

umm any chance of a reference for this? otherwise I'm going to assume a bloke in the pub told you about it.

Not from the pub but I might be guilty of scandalising the court so I've sent you some details by PM.

mud_guard

Bepolite wrote: »

You have to distinguish between courts of limited jurisdiction like the District and Circuit courts and the High and Supreme Court. Given your linked thread lets look at the DC.

The DC is a clearing house as such, quick decisions based on whats in front of the judge. The DC is frequently criticised for being little fiefdoms but whats the alternate? Would you have preferred a half day trial with experts called to recommend the appropriate fine? We'd probably only need a 5% raise in income tax to properly fund the court system, I'm all for it obviously.

If there is a judge in the DC that has gone off the reservation it would be quickly picked up due to the number of appeals to the Circuit Court. As it stands yes a judge is probably going to look at someone with a nice car and give them a bigger fine, that's just a common sense judgment designed to make it hurt you as much as a smaller fine hurts someone driving a decade old Micra. As for cases being struck out, again every case is different.

your assuming that all the bad calls made by DC judges reach the circuit court for appeal

they do not , due to the cost involved which is prohibitive to some people and the fact that once you get a conviction against you in the DC , you have to work twice as hard at circuit court level to clear your name

their is a DC judge based in the border region who is an out and out nutcase and frequently makes the national press for outrageous outburst and statements , the descisions this guy makes are truly outrageous yet he,s still on the bench , hes only there aswell due to his friendship with a former TD who thought a major stretch of road in this country was fair game for driving on the wrong way while tanked up

Valentine1

Wheelnut wrote: »

Not from the pub but I might be guilty of scandalising the court so I've sent you some details by PM.

I think you misunderstand scandalising the court.

Wheelnut

Bepolite wrote: »

... I'm interested to hear what your solution would be?

Are you trying to side-track me? I'm trying to stay on the subject which is whether a court can be criticised and what is the law.

Valentine1 wrote: »

I think you misunderstand scandalising the court.

I should have put in a "wink" smilie there. Here it is:

I have got your reply to my PM and yes I could have put the message on the public forum. However if you go back to my first post you will see it was prompted by the linked thread being closed after two posts because (I think) it seemed to be approaching a criticism of the courts, and I did not want this thread closed. Indeed I hope Mud Guard is not going to cause it to be closed by his post.

johnnyskeleton

Wheelnut wrote: »

For example (and this is very loose) there was a recent case in the midlands where a person was accused of aggressive begging (I don't know what the offence is called) Instead of convicting or dismissing the case, the judge gave the person €400 from the court poor-box.

You mean the Judge ordered the person to pay €400 into the poor box? Otherwise....

Bepolite

mud_guard wrote: »

your assuming that all the bad calls made by DC judges reach the circuit court for appeal

they do not , due to the cost involved which is prohibitive to some people and the fact that once you get a conviction against you in the DC , you have to work twice as hard at circuit court level to clear your name

their is a DC judge based in the border region who is an out and out nutcase and frequently makes the national press for outrageous outburst and statements , the descisions this guy makes are truly outrageous yet he,s still on the bench , hes only there aswell due to his friendship with a former TD who thought a major stretch of road in this country was fair game for driving on the wrong way while tanked up

I'm not assuming that at all. You're post seems to disprove the OP original point ref journalism.

Bepolite

Wheelnut wrote: »

Are you trying to side-track me? I'm trying to stay on the subject which is whether a court can be criticised and what is the law.

Of course it can. You can't make wild allegations but if you believe a particular judge is wrong you can make that comment and many frequently do. You may have issues during ongoing cases due to ancillary concerns but that's doesn't seem to be what you're driving at.

Wheelnut

Bepolite wrote: »

... but that's doesn't seem to be what you're driving at.

That's right, I know that no-one would pay any attention to me having a rant. One thing I have in mind is that we never see general opinion pieces about verdicts or sentences in the Sunday papers for instance. There is plenty of material for such writing, here are a few thoughts:

The general sentence for murder can be eight to ten years (maybe twelve) with the last part suspended, so with remission the the murderer can be out in six to eight years. Does this not place a very low value on human life? It must be very hurtful for the family of the victim.

Other serious crimes also carry similar sentences. If a dangerous criminal is convicted, even in his forties or fifties, he will still be fit and strong when he comes out, so he will be physically able to settle scores with people who gave evidence against him. I would certainly consider that before giving evidence so I don't think such sentencing is helpful to the cause of justice.

In public liability cases everybody knows that the legal people are unlikely to get paid if the claimant fails, so judges grasp at all sorts of straws to justify an award. The claimant only has to get the smallest amount to get his legal costs from the defendant. This money-generating practice only serves to drive up taxes and insurance costs for the ordinary person.

Just three thoughts of many that have occurred to me as a non-legal person and I am sure that similar thoughts have occurred to others as well. Journalists have generated bigger stories form less material, yet they always seem to avoid this area.

234

I'll deal with two of your points.

Wheelnut wrote: »

The general sentence for murder can be eight to ten years (maybe twelve) with the last part suspended, so with remission the the murderer can be out in six to eight years. Does this not place a very low value on human life? It must be very hurtful for the family of the victim.

This is just incorrect. All murders in Ireland receive mandatory life sentences. It is then a matter for the executive (ie the government and parole service) to determine if parole should be granted. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.

In public liability cases everybody knows that the legal people are unlikely to get paid if the claimant fails, so judges grasp at all sorts of straws to justify an award. The claimant only has to get the smallest amount to get his legal costs from the defendant. This money-generating practice only serves to drive up taxes and insurance costs for the ordinary person.

Again, this is just a complete lie. This a scandalous assertion and you really need to have some evidence before you make such claims. If anything the perception is that current SC is slightly anti-plaintiff. A further point is that "public liability" is a kind of insurance, not a type of case, we might be able to have a more informed discussion if you indicated what kinds of cases you are talking about eg personal injury, other negligence, assault, occupiers liability, etc.

A final point, once insurance companies are involved, as your public liability comment suggests, then they will in most circumstances settle before the matter ever gets to court. So your unsubstantiated comment about the behaviour of judges, even if true, could only ever apply to a minority of cases.

Valentine1

My comments in blue

Wheelnut wrote: »

That's right, I know that no-one would pay any attention to me having a rant. One thing I have in mind is that we never see general opinion pieces about verdicts or sentences in the Sunday papers for instance. There is plenty of material for such writing, here are a few thoughts:


The general sentence for murder can be eight to ten years (maybe twelve) with the last part suspended, so with remission the the murderer can be out in six to eight years. Does this not place a very low value on human life? It must be very hurtful for the family of the victim.

as pointed out, you are incorrect here. Murder carries a mandatory Life sentence, it is my understanding that with parole and remission the average sentence served for murder is 14 years. Whether people consider that too short or not is a topic for a different thread, either way your estimate of 6 to 8 years is way off the mark.

Other serious crimes also carry similar sentences. If a dangerous criminal is convicted, even in his forties or fifties, he will still be fit and strong when he comes out, so he will be physically able to settle scores with people who gave evidence against him. I would certainly consider that before giving evidence so I don't think such sentencing is helpful to the cause of justice.

This is all pure conjecture and whatiffary. If you can provide evidence of a trend of criminals "settling scores" with witnesses following their release I'll look at it.

In public liability cases everybody knows that the legal people are unlikely to get paid if the claimant fails, so judges grasp at all sorts of straws to justify an award. The claimant only has to get the smallest amount to get his legal costs from the defendant. This money-generating practice only serves to drive up taxes and insurance costs for the ordinary person.

Totally wrong and utterly uninformed as to how Costs are apportioned or payed in a legal action. Your assertion about Judges is made without foundation have you any concrete examples or evidence?

Just three thoughts of many that have occurred to me as a non-legal person and I am sure that similar thoughts have occurred to others as well. Journalists have generated bigger stories form less material, yet they always seem to avoid this area.

Bepolite

Wheelnut wrote: »

That's right, I know that no-one would pay any attention to me having a rant. One thing I have in mind is that we never see general opinion pieces about verdicts or sentences in the Sunday papers for instance. There is plenty of material for such writing, here are a few thoughts:

A discussion of our sentencing and the myriad of factors involved is the subject of much academic discussion with a fair amount of criticism to go around. One of the worst kept secrets is our prison system is at breaking point, we need to spend hundreds of millions on fixing it and Judges will where possible try and avoid adding to the problem by sending people there or giving long sentences. Should they be letting this effect there decisions? Probably not but I don't like the alternative.

The issues you raise are still very unclear. Are you asking about judges in general, Judges of the DC or other Judges?

Wheelnut wrote: »

The general sentence for murder can be eight to ten years (maybe twelve) with the last part suspended, so with remission the the murderer can be out in six to eight years. Does this not place a very low value on human life? It must be very hurtful for the family of the victim.

Mandatory life, used to be an average of 12 years has crept up to 17 over the last 15 year or so. The final part is no suspended the person is released on license meaning they can be recalled at anytime.

Wheelnut wrote: »

Other serious crimes also carry similar sentences. If a dangerous criminal is convicted, even in his forties or fifties, he will still be fit and strong when he comes out, so he will be physically able to settle scores with people who gave evidence against him. I would certainly consider that before giving evidence so I don't think such sentencing is helpful to the cause of justice.

I'm not getting your point here. Are you suggesting that for serious crimes people should be locked up until they die? As for going after the people that gave evidence, this is good for Saturday night TV but realistically why bother once you've been convicted? Where there is a genuine issue there is witness protection.

Wheelnut wrote: »

In public liability cases everybody knows that the legal people are unlikely to get paid if the claimant fails, so judges grasp at all sorts of straws to justify an award. The claimant only has to get the smallest amount to get his legal costs from the defendant. This money-generating practice only serves to drive up taxes and insurance costs for the ordinary person.

Judges occasionally where the case is falling at 50/50 might fall back on the fact that one party is insured and the other is not beyond this you're simply wrong on this one I'm afraid. This is a fundamental lack of understanding on how our Tort law works. We try to make people whole, we don't have punitive damages (save in exceptional circumstances). People have a right to claim where they have been injured. It's very easy to avoid being sued for injuring someone, don't injure them.

Fraud is another aspect and is seen through by the majority of Judges. I've actual personal experience of a Judge seeing through a fake personal injury claim against my in-laws and I can assure you it wasn't pretty for the plaintiff.

Wheelnut wrote: »

Just three thoughts of many that have occurred to me as a non-legal person and I am sure that similar thoughts have occurred to others as well. Journalists have generated bigger stories form less material, yet they always seem to avoid this area.

Because when you get down to it most of what you (and you are far from alone) think about the legal profession is based on misconception. A piece on the facts of the legal system dispelling some of these myths is hardly going to endear the author to his or her readership.

hullaballoo

I'm just going to throw this into the mix: http://goo.gl/ZC148u

Wheelnut

I'm beginning to suspect that at least some of you guys are in the legal profession. Bear in mind that I started this thread to find out if there is any reason why courts and judges are not queried or criticised just like other figures in public life. In my last post I put up three thoughts which have occurred to me and which I have never heard discussed publicly. The responses were interesting although I felt there was some hostility to me for even thinking those thoughts. Why can we not have these things discussed?

BTW: That case of the electrician and the ladder was a good read.

234

Wheelnut wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect that at least some of you guys are in the legal profession. Bear in mind that I started this thread to find out if there is any reason why courts and judges are not queried or criticised just like other figures in public life. In my last post I put up three thoughts which have occurred to me and which I have never heard discussed publicly. The responses were interesting although I felt there was some hostility to me for even thinking those thoughts. Why can we not have these things discussed?

BTW: That case of the electrician and the ladder was a good read.

Look, if you have questions or thoughts then phrase them as such. Nobody is going to blame you for not knowing the answer.

But you posted assertion as if they were true. If you assert something, particularly in the nature of your last post, then you need to be able to back it up.

People are more than happy to have a civilised discussion, but if you bait them then you can't then complain that they didn't play nice.

johnnyskeleton

Wheelnut wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect that at least some of you guys are in the legal profession. Bear in mind that I started this thread to find out if there is any reason why courts and judges are not queried or criticised just like other figures in public life. In my last post I put up three thoughts which have occurred to me and which I have never heard discussed publicly. The responses were interesting although I felt there was some hostility to me for even thinking those thoughts. Why can we not have these things discussed?

BTW: That case of the electrician and the ladder was a good read.

If I went into the soccer forum and said:

"Why does Wayne Rooney score all the goals? Why can't the players just take turns getting the goals"

it would show that I haven't even done some basic online googling into what football is nor made any effort to even try to understand the game. Other people who are passionate about football would e right to point out to me, in fairly strong terms, that other players score goals too.

So asking questions is fine, but you should as a matter of basic courtesy know a little bit about what you're talking about and if you don't know something dont bluff or bulls*it by making up random figures about sentences for murder.

Your figures for murder - where did you get them from? You must admit that you just made that up out of nowhere, didn't you?

Pat Mustard

Wheelnut wrote: »

In public liability personal injury cases everybody knows that the legal people are unlikely to get paid if the claimant fails, so judges grasp at all sorts of straws to justify an award.

This is not so. If a plaintiff cannot prove his case, he will lose. Simple as that.

Wheelnut wrote: »

The claimant only has to get the smallest amount to get his legal costs from the defendant. This money-generating practice only serves to drive up taxes and insurance costs for the ordinary person.

This is incorrect on just about every level.

Let's use some hypothetical examples. Suppose the Injuries Board has made an assessment of €20,000.00 in favour of a Plaintiff who has sustained an injury. The Defendant accepts the assessment.

If the Defendant accepts the assessment but the Plaintiff rejects it and brings court action, even if the court makes an award in the Plaintiff's favour, if that award does not exceed the Injuries Board assessment, the Plaintiff will not be awarded costs, and he may have to pay all or a portion of the Defendant's costs.

Let's say the Plaintiff issues proceedings in the Circuit Court, with a max jurisdiction of €38k odd. Unless he is awarded more than €20k, he will not be awarded his own costs and he risks paying all or a portion of the Defendant's costs. Let's assume that the court makes an award of €18k (which is less than the Injuries Board assessment), and makes an order that the Plaintiff should pay all of the Defendant's costs. Suppose the Defendant's costs come to €9k. The Plaintiff would only be left with €9k, notwithstanding the costs and legal fees which he may or may not have incurred on his own behalf.

Let's say the Plaintiff's lawyers believe that the Plaintiff may be entitled to a higher amount of damages and that they advise him to issue proceedings in the High Court, instead of the Circuit Court. Let us suppose that the Plaintiff issues in the High Court but is only awarded €21k. This exceeds the Injuries Board assessment, but there is another problem. Even though the Plaintiff has issued in the High Court and been awarded a substantial amount of damages which exceeded the Injuries Board assessment, the award does not even come close to exceeding Circuit Court jurisdiction. In those circumstances, because the Plaintiff issued proceedings in the wrong jurisdiction, he risks having an award of High Court costs made against him. Depending on the circumstances, High Court costs could wipe him out.

It's totally incorrect to say that even the smallest awards will result in awards of legal costs. OP, I realise that you are not a lawyer, but if you go around making baseless assertions, you should expect somebody to refute them.

jonsnow

Wheelnut wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect that at least some of you guys are in the legal profession. Bear in mind that I started this thread to find out if there is any reason why courts and judges are not queried or criticised just like other figures in public life. In my last post I put up three thoughts which have occurred to me and which I have never heard discussed publicly. The responses were interesting although I felt there was some hostility to me for even thinking those thoughts. Why can we not have these things discussed?

BTW: That case of the electrician and the ladder was a good read.

Seriously???You are in the Legal Discussion section.Who did you think would be here? Lawyers are going to drop in from time to time. I,d wager you,ll find some firemen and gardai in the Emergency Services forum and some teachers in education forums.

Valentine1

Wheelnut wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect that at least some of you guys are in the legal profession. Bear in mind that I started this thread to find out if there is any reason why courts and judges are not queried or criticised just like other figures in public life. In my last post I put up three thoughts which have occurred to me and which I have never heard discussed publicly. The responses were interesting although I felt there was some hostility to me for even thinking those thoughts. Why can we not have these things discussed?

BTW: That case of the electrician and the ladder was a good read.

Apologies if you felt hostility to you but as mentioned by other posters simply making assertions without anything to back them up isn't particularly useful.

Your original question about questioning Judges' decisions has been answered in this tread on more than one occasion. Perhaps the answers weren't to your satisfaction but if it is a discussion on Scandalizing the court you want it would be better for you to do some research on the topic and then bring your questions and understanding to the forum.

Finally I don't believe that you have never heard public discussions about the issues you raised. Every time Mr. Justice Paul Carney hands down a sentence it seems to end up in the papers and on the news and usually the sentence is the topic of the debate. Similarly it is commonplace for families of either the victim or the defendant to appear on television after the judgment criticizing judges as either to harsh or too lenient. If it isn't clear to you why this is different from scandalizing the Court, do some reading and come back to us.

Muahahaha

Bepolite wrote: »

So your issue is with the list system? Well I would tend to agree but I'm interested to hear what your solution would be?

Couldn't parties just be informed by text message that their case is upcoming ? I'm not in the game but the few times I've gone to watch courts I was always surprised at the amount of people waiting around twiddling their thumbs. There has to be a better way.

Pat Mustard

Muahahaha wrote: »

Couldn't parties just be informed by text message that their case is upcoming ? I'm not in the game but the few times I've gone to watch courts I was always surprised at the amount of people waiting around twiddling their thumbs. There has to be a better way.

I would say that there would have to be more judges to implement a system like that. If there were more judges, while there would be an extra expense in employing them and providing court facilities to back them up, there would be savings in other areas. For one thing, it would reduce the numbers of Gardai that have to hang around, waiting for cases to get on. Ditto in relation to punters that have to take a half day or a whole day off work to come into court for whatever reason.

I think that you are right. There is quite a bit inefficiency in the current system, and it should be updated.

Bepolite

Muahahaha wrote: »

Couldn't parties just be informed by text message that their case is upcoming ? I'm not in the game but the few times I've gone to watch courts I was always surprised at the amount of people waiting around twiddling their thumbs. There has to be a better way.

I take your point but I think this would be a something way down the line, you'd first have to sort out the system to have cases running when they say they are going to run. Common Law judges don't usually get involved in case management, at least not to the degree their civil law counterparts do. That said I believe the Supreme Court has engaged in a significant amount of case management in trying to resolve some of their issues. Hopefully the Court of Appeal will rectify some of the issues at SC level.

The High Court on the other hand, from what I can gather and I welcome correction, is relatively efficient. Frankly when it comes to the clearing house system of the District Court there's not a huge amount that can be done there. The circuit court remains a mystery to me! The one I attended Bray seemed more like the circus court and believe me, a particular Judge out there garners quite a bit of criticism for certain idiosyncrasies.

One thing that struck me last Saturday was there seemed to be courts running in the CCJ. I didn't realise they did that. Do they run any at night any where?

johnnyskeleton

Bepolite wrote: »

One thing that struck me last Saturday was there seemed to be courts running in the CCJ. I didn't realise they did that. Do they run any at night any where?

Evening and Saturday courts are for custody cases eg where someone is to be charged and bail is contested.

greyday

What reasons would a judge have for giving someone a suspended sentence for having over 5000 child abuse photographs on their computer?

johnnyskeleton

greyday wrote: »

What reasons would a judge have for giving someone a suspended sentence for having over 5000 child abuse photographs on their computer?

Have you read any of the other posts in this thread at all?

greyday

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Have you read any of the other posts in this thread at all?

Yes I have, I did not see that question posed or answered.

Wheelnut

OK guys, you can relax, I'm not going to say any more about the matters in this thread.

However I would like to clarify one thing: There seems to be a suggestion in a post that I might be engaged in baiting. This was never my intention and I hope it did not seem that way. I came in here just to find out something and for nothing more, so I must refute any suggestion of baiting.

Don't worry, I've been taking part in public fora for years so I'm not taking offense, I might even be back! Thank you all.

Pro Hoc Vice

greyday wrote: »

What reasons would a judge have for giving someone a suspended sentence for having over 5000 child abuse photographs on their computer?

I'll try and set out what a judge may think when passing sentence. This is only my opinion after hearing many sentences.

First of all we must accept that Prision places are not an infinite resource. We had only x number of prison nights per year. When current system costs approx if I remember is almost €300 million a year, the most of that is made up of wages.

Now once we accept that we as a society through our judges have to use the resource to the best. Certain crimes are easy murder for example we as a society require mandatory life, we then look at serious crimes of violence and crimes that society feels damages society large drugs offences. We also look at rape as a serious crime of violence.

At the other end we have minor drugs offences, minor public order and small theft offences.

But there are a raft of offences that can end up in either end, a good example is child porn, at the very serious end is production etc. At the other side is possession. Things that a court will consider in sentence of a person in possession, is did the person admit guilt early on, did the person accept that their action is harmful to themselves and society. Did the person get assistance early, and finally is it the opinion of relevant people that the person will or will not reoffend.

Once the court has all that information including the maximum sentence available, the judge must weigh up all the information, the effect on society and the child or children and the accused. Will any benefit to society in prison be outweighed by the use of the prison place so leaving less space for a violent offender. Also the court will look at previous, for this and similar crimes, or in the case of multiple convictions the lack of insight into the guilty persons offending.

It's not an easy job, many may disagree with the decision, more importantly the DPP may disagree and appeal the sentence depending on case law.

BTW legislation also sets out assistance for a judge in the maximum sentence for a offence and if the offence is summary, indictment or both. For example to allow a child to be used in such acts is indictment and 14 years (I have not double checked amendments), while possession is onDC conviction max 1 year while on Indictment 5 years.

Bepolite

In some ways this is relevant to the OP. To what level should judges be protected against 'backlash' such as the the posters reaction to a suspended sentence for child porn? No doubt the judge had excellent reasons, some set out eloquently by the above poster, however it doesn't stop the press whipping up a storm if they so wish.

To what degree should judges reflect moral outrage? Should we elect judges? (Frankly everyone should watch 'The Wire' before commenting on that one)

234

Bepolite wrote: »

In some ways this is relevant to the OP. To what level should judges be protected against 'backlash' such as the the posters reaction to a suspended sentence for child porn? No doubt the judge had excellent reasons, some set out eloquently by the above poster, however it doesn't stop the press whipping up a storm if they so wish.

To what degree should judges reflect moral outrage? Should we elect judges? (Frankly everyone should watch 'The Wire' before commenting on that one)

As long as you have a functioning legislature and a relatively low threshold for holding referendums then I can't think of a single good reason to elect judges.

Just to be clear there is a significant body of academic research that shows that when people get their facts about cases from the media they generally believe sentencing to be too lenient whereas when they hear the facts as presented to the judge they generally agree with the sentences handed down by the judiciary.

For the most part the whole thing about backlashes against lenient judges is a media created monster and, if they did their job properly, wouldn't actually reflect the reality on the ground.

Wheelnut's own wildly inaccurate ideas about sentencing in murder cases is a good example of the gap between fact and perception in this area.

johnnyskeleton

"Dog bites man" doesn't sell as many newspapers as "man bites dog"

234

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

"Dog bites man" doesn't sell as many newspapers as "man bites dog"

But "NO JAIIL FOR DOG SLASHER!!!" sells the most papers of all.

Muahahaha

234 wrote: »

As long as you have a functioning legislature and a relatively low threshold for holding referendums then I can't think of a single good reason to elect judges.

Wouldn't it at least make them more accountable to the public than they currently are? With the public getting the judges who reflect their own values rather than the values of the Minister for Justice of the day, most of whom didn't get an opportunity to vote or not vote for him/her. And remove the system of political appointments , surely that is damaging to democracy to concentrate appointing power in the hands of the few ?

Bepolite

Muahahaha wrote: »

Wouldn't it at least make them more accountable to the public than they currently are? With the public getting the judges who reflect their own values rather than the values of the Minister for Justice of the day, most of whom didn't get an opportunity to vote or not vote for him/her. And remove the system of political appointments , surely that is damaging to democracy to concentrate appointing power in the hands of the few ?

Should judges reflect the values of society as a whole or should they operate under the best legal and academic theories of the time?

Would voting on Judges cause more or less pandering than the current system?

I don't believe the current system is perfect but I do think it's better than the system employed in the US, which to be fair isn't a straight vote every 5 years or so and neither do they vote in all states.

234

Muahahaha wrote: »

Wouldn't it at least make them more accountable to the public than they currently are? With the public getting the judges who reflect their own values rather than the values of the Minister for Justice of the day, most of whom didn't get an opportunity to vote or not vote for him/her. And remove the system of political appointments , surely that is damaging to democracy to concentrate appointing power in the hands of the few ?

Those are all good arguments for electing politicians, not judges. Adjudication shouldn't be about reflecting values, it's about interpreting and applying law. The idea that this should change as quickly and as erratically as public mores is a bit far-fetched. If judges were accountable to popular opinion then they would just make popular decisions, rather than correct decisions (I do know that these are not mutually exclusive).

The point about the MoJ is actually something we should be concerned about. However, this suggests that we should have a wholly independent judicial appointments process, as the legal profession has been crying out for for years, rather than direct elections.

While judges should not be held to account by the court of public opinion, there are good mechanisms for constraining their decisions should we wish. The legislature has previously passed legislation to cancel out the effect of judicial decisions. As a country we also have quite a high degree of direct democracy in the form of our frequent referenda. Again, we have amended the constitution on occasions to reverse the effect of particular decisions.

So the best way of holding the law to account is through democratic processes, rather than a popularity contest on the bench.

Judicial discipline is another matter all together and this should be dealt with by an independent judicial council as the CJ has suggested.