Court cases today, Dublin

LionelNashe

If I wanted to go and see a court case today, just for curiosity, in the Four Courts or parkgate street, would there be any criminal cases on? Or any interesting cases? I can never find any useful info the official websites.

Turner

CCJ 13, parkgate street. Jobstown false imprisonment trial of Joan Bruton is taking place.

An interesting one to say the least.

Paleblood

LionelNashe wrote: »

If I wanted to go and see a court case today, just for curiosity, in the Four Courts or parkgate street, would there be any criminal cases on? Or any interesting cases? I can never find any useful info the official websites.

Yes all of the cases are open to the public except in very specific circumstances. The Four Courts is for civil law and won't be very interesting unless you're familiar with the subjects under discussion.

Head to Parkgate for criminal cases. There's an on-going murder trial at the moment. I think today might be its final day. Head from court to court until you find something 'interesting'. Just be quite and respectful at all times and remember that the cases can be very difficult experiences for the parties involved.

I'd encourage everyone to attend the courts. There's a lot of misconceptions about what happens in a court. Exercise your rights as a member of the public and go watch justice being done (or not done).

LionelNashe

Here now. The building is impressive.

Paleblood

LionelNashe wrote: »

Here now. The building is impressive.

Not when you're being smuggled in through the back door.

Samuel T. Cogley

There was talk of the good people of AH being given control of the building. The idea is if they think the person is guilty the just lob them off the top floor. If they live they're innocent and James' isn't very far.

bobbyss

Paleblood wrote: »

Yes all of the cases are open to the public except in very specific circumstances. The Four Courts is for civil law and won't be very interesting unless you're familiar with the subjects under discussion.

Head to Parkgate for criminal cases. There's an on-going murder trial at the moment. I think today might be its final day. Head from court to court until you find something 'interesting'. Just be quite and respectful at all times and remember that the cases can be very difficult experiences for the parties involved.

I'd encourage everyone to attend the courts. There's a lot of misconceptions about what happens in a court. Exercise your rights as a member of the public and go watch justice being done (or not done).

Can you go from court to court just like that? Would you not be interrupting a case ? The courts,ie website is not in the least user friendly and very difficult to find out what is happening in courts around the country. For example, to a layman if I wanted to see what case I could see in Clonmel tomorrow or Roscommon Town I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that. Is it possible to do that? Also if someone told me that John Doe was up on trial next month (somewhere) is it possible for me to find out what courthouse that would happen in?

Paleblood

bobbyss wrote: »

Can you go from court to court just like that?

Yep, it really is as simple as that. The courts are open to the public unless the case is being held in camera (private). Family law issues, for example, are not open to the pubic. But 'standard' criminal law trials can be attended by anyone if that's what you're interested in.

bobbyss wrote: »

Would you not be interrupting a case?

The courts are busy places and there's almost always people coming and going. You won't be interrupting anyone but just remember that there are people involved in serious work, not to mention the various parties to the case and/or the victim's families. It goes without saying that the most interesting cases are often the most serious ones. So while you'll simply be there out of curiosity, there may be people there recounting awful experiences or hearing very distressing evidence. Be respectful of that.

bobbyss wrote: »

The courts.ie website is not in the least user friendly and very difficult to find out what is happening in courts around the country. For example, to a layman if I wanted to see what case I could see in Clonmel tomorrow or Roscommon Town I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that. Is it possible to do that?

First of all, the weekly District Court listings aren't available on Courts.ie. When I worked in a criminal firm our local court emailed us through the day's listings when it became available. You can turn up on the day and there will be a public list hanging up somewhere.

Everything above the District Court is listed on Courts.ie, but, as you've already pointed out, the website isn't very intuitive, although it's not that bad. Head to 'Legal Diary' on the right hand side, then click on the court you're interested in. The Central Criminal Court is easily accessible. Things get slightly more tricky with the Circuit Court section. There's drop-down menus to select your region, civil or criminal courts and I think you might have to enter date ranges as well. But just mess about with it and you'll soon learn how to find what you're looking for.

bobbyss wrote: »

Also if someone told me that John Doe was up on trial next month (somewhere) is it possible for me to find out what courthouse that would happen in?

I'm not sure about that. What happens in the court is a matter of public record (except in the special circumstances outlined above) so it's possible that if you contacted your local Court office they'd be able to give you the information you're looking for. Just ring up and find out. They won't be long about telling you to feck off if you've no right to that information.

Finally, a word of caution. It is your right to see justice being done but ask yourself what your motivations are. If you're interested in the case or the subject matter then by all means head along, but if you're just in it for the voyeurism or the misery porn then I'd instead recommend either dogging or The Late Late Show.

Really Interested

bobbyss wrote: »

Can you go from court to court just like that? Would you not be interrupting a case ? The courts,ie website is not in the least user friendly and very difficult to find out what is happening in courts around the country. For example, to a layman if I wanted to see what case I could see in Clonmel tomorrow or Roscommon Town I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that. Is it possible to do that? Also if someone told me that John Doe was up on trial next month (somewhere) is it possible for me to find out what courthouse that would happen in?

Go to courts.ie then click on English, then click on legal diary, then click on circuit court, then for example use drop down list, pick clonmel, then drop down civil or criminal or both then go to date range the dates in red are hearing dates. Say pinch start 30th may end range 30th may it will give you two lists one civil one family. Click on civil you will see a list of all civil cases for clonmel for the 30th. You can also look at High Court etc. There is also a daily list for all High Court Court of appeal and SC lists.

Samuel T. Cogley

The Irish courts are extremely relaxed. The Old Bailey doesn't even allow phones on the premises let alone on your person where as is Ireland you can saunter in to pretty much any court pop your coat off and watch, and if you haven't you really should!

Victor

Paleblood wrote: »

Finally, a word of caution. It is your right to see justice being done but ask yourself what your motivations are. If you're interested in the case or the subject matter then by all means head along, but if you're just in it for the voyeurism or the misery porn then I'd instead recommend either dogging or The Late Late Show.

I think there is a balanced mid-ground of seeing the justice system at work.

LionelNashe

I'll recount what I saw in case anyone is interested.

I was surprised at the airport-like security. Metal detectors, x-ray for your belongings, and no liquids allowed. The building, as I mentioned, looks great.

I did hesitate for half an hour before entering any court room, but then I saw people walking in and out so that made it easy.

I had a look in court 13 where the Jobstown trial was happening, but there weren't any free seats so I spent 90 minutes in a different court instead.

The atmosphere is a bit like a noisy church, with people sitting on wooden pews, the judge and his servers up at the top, a few whisperers hanging around the back doors.

The judge had a microphone, but I thought that the Garda witnesses and solicitors/barristers could have done with some amplification as well, to be heard over the sound of people's footsteps going up and down the aisle.

There weren't any cases that took longer than 5 minutes. There was a lot of stuff being 'put back for mention' which seems to me to be inefficient use of time, especially considering the number of guards, uniformed or not, who were to be in the building. On the other hand the cases seemed to have been arranged so that the same Garda Sergeant seemed to be dealing with a lot of them, which was a good use of time.

There were a few shoplifting cases. Addiction/alcohol issues mostly, except for one case where a woman with no record walked out of a shop with a pair of sunglasses she had been trying on. I think they all got fines of €100 and the probation act.

There was one case where a guy was being accused of a violent attack with a weapon on two people in a busy location. He was very relaxed, stretching his arms behind his head, and a 'Thanks, Judge' as he was walking out at the end of the hearing.

One Portuguese speaker hadn't shown up on time, when a translator was available, and was given the chance to find a translator for the afternoon sitting. The judge told him to get hold of his mother, brother, cousin, whatever, or he could be facing the weekend in jail.

One thing that struck me was that the judge seemed to be enjoying his work, despite the fast pace.

bobbyss

Paleblood wrote: »

Finally, a word of caution. It is your right to see justice being done but ask yourself what your motivations are. If you're interested in the case or the subject matter then by all means head along, but if you're just in it for the voyeurism or the misery porn then I'd instead recommend either dogging or The Late Late Show.

Thanks for that but I don't know which one of those would be worse.

If you went into a court could you use your mobile to video what was happening? If not, why not?

Are transcripts of trials available?

Victor

bobbyss wrote: »

If you went into a court could you use your mobile to video what was happening?

No.

If not, why not?

Because it might interfere with what is happening in the court, e.g. it might put people off and they say the wrong thing, witnesses might be intimidated or grandstand, etc. Additionally, the judge just might hold you in contempt and send you to prison.

Are transcripts of trials available?

Generally only to the court and the parties, when requested. Some journalists may use shorthand, but not for entire trials.

hullaballoo

The DAR files are fairly unavailable and difficult to get but stenographers are still commonly employed where the trials are lengthy or complex so transcripts are readily available between the parties at least.

Samuel T. Cogley

Nothing to stop you furiously scribbling notes or indeed typing them (quietly). One internship I did was spent almost exclusively at the CCJ exercising my terrible penmanship and spelling.

bobbyss

Victor wrote: »

No.

Because it might interfere with what is happening in the court, e.g. it might put people off and they say the wrong thing, witnesses might be intimidated or grandstand, etc. Additionally, the judge just might hold you in contempt and send you to prison.

Generally only to the court and the parties, when requested. Some journalists may use shorthand, but not for entire trials.

Thanks for that.

I am sure it would be possible to discretely use a mobile or other similar device to video a session without anyone knowing and therefore without any of the compromise you referred to.

1 Are there signs in courts saying it's prohibited?
2 Is there a specific law which prohibits this?
3 Can a judge make any rule regarding the running of a court eg prohibiting cameras etc.
4 Can a rule of a judge be challenged?

Lux23

bobbyss wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I am sure it would be possible to discretely use a mobile or other similar device to video a session without anyone knowing and therefore without any of the compromise you referred to.

1 Are there signs in courts saying it's prohibited?
2 Is there a specific law which prohibits this?
3 Can a judge make any rule regarding the running of a court eg prohibiting cameras etc.
4 Can a rule of a judge be challenged?

You can't record any court session in Ireland. The cheek of you for thinking otherwise.

Peregrinus

Judges are generally in control of what happens in their courts. I don't know if there's a specific prohibition in the Rules of Court on recording from the spectator's gallery, but it is definitely not permitted.

Samuel T. Cogley

Lux23 wrote: »

You can't record any court session in Ireland. The cheek of you for thinking otherwise.

Well actually...

There is no statute or law prohibiting it. It's an inherent jurisdiction of the court.

Law reform paper here unless it's been updated since.

bobbyss wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I am sure it would be possible to discretely use a mobile or other similar device to video a session without anyone knowing and therefore without any of the compromise you referred to.

1 Are there signs in courts saying it's prohibited?
2 Is there a specific law which prohibits this?
3 Can a judge make any rule regarding the running of a court eg prohibiting cameras etc.
4 Can a rule of a judge be challenged?

Signs - probably but I can't remember (which would be making a rule by the way).
Specific Law - Yes and No see above
Specific rule - well that's a good question is it for a specific case or a general rule - it's accepted as a general rule but:
Can it be challenged - of course it can, you can challenge anything you like as long as you have standing to do so.

bobbyss

Lux23 wrote:

You can't record any court session in Ireland. The cheek of you for thinking otherwise.

Can you refer me to a law or rule that specifically states that a court session can not be recorded in Ireland?
Thanks.

Lux23

bobbyss wrote: »

Can you refer me to a law or rule that specifically states that a court session can not be recorded in Ireland?
Thanks.

Can you refer me to a law that says you can record court proceedings?

manonboard

Lux23 wrote: »

Can you refer me to a law that says you can record court proceedings?

That's not really how law works. We don't seek permission to do things. We generally are told what is illegal most of the time.

Samuel T. Cogley

manonboard wrote: »

That's not really how law works. We don't seek permission to do things. We generally are told what is illegal most of the time.

Someone will, one day, get the unlawful / illegal difference through my thick skull - is it this?

GM228

bobbyss wrote: »

Can you refer me to a law or rule that specifically states that a court session can not be recorded in Ireland?
Thanks.

There is none, however it is accepted to be forbidden by the courts "inherent powers", a common law doctrine dating back to around 1840 which basically allows a court to have unlimited powers over its own processes.

It is discussed briefly in the Law Reform Commission's Paper on "Contempt of Court" which STC linked to earlier. Strictly speaking the LRC more than once incorrectly refer to inherent jurisdiction (they also mention power) - a very common mistake made by the judiciary as it is technically an inherent power applicable to all courts.

(3) Tape Recorders

No statute regulates in express terms the use of tape recorders (or other sound recorders) in court. The matter appears to fall within the inherent jurisdiction of the court to regulate its own procedure. The precise rationale for, and consequent scope of, this jurisdiction in general is a matter of uncertainty, which impinges on the specific question of the use of tape recorders. On one view, the purpose of the jurisdiction is to prevent any obstruction of, or interference with, the administration of justice. As an American commentator stated of the experience in the United States,

inherent powers may be used only when reasonably necessary for the court to be able to function .... Courts may not exercise inherent powers merely because their use would be convenient or desirable.

On another view, the exercise of the court's inherent power should not be confined to cases of strict necessity and is permissible whenever its purpose is to secure or promote convenience and expedition in the administration of justice. The difference of approach – or perhaps mere tendency – may be important in relation to the use of recorders in court. Is a judge entitled to prohibit their use in all circumstances or only in particular cases? It is clear that recordings are capable of being put to improper use in certain circumstances: they may, for example, interrupt the flow of proceedings, or intimidate a witness, or they may be re-played to coach a person who has yet to give evidence.

Of course in cases where there is a specific risk of any misuse of this type, a judge would be perfectly free to prohibit the use of a recorder; but it is not entirely beyond argument that a judge may invoke such hypothetical risks, so as to prohibit the use of recordings in all circumstances. One suspects that, if the issue were tested, an appellate court might well uphold the propriety of even an absolute prohibition on the basis that it is never possible to exclude these risks, even if there is no question about the integrity of the would-be user of the recorder, since there may be an unauthorised use of the recording by someone else. Whether such an a priori resolution of the issue would commend itself to the court, however, is impossible to predict.

So far as general principles are concerned, it is relevant, though not conclusive, that the right of persons in Court to take notes has been recognised, and it may be argued that this represents a general entitlement to record the evidence. More broadly, on constitutional grounds, it may be contended that open justice would not be fully guaranteed if it is limited to what those who attend court can recall or record by taking notes. The reply to these arguments, no doubt, is that sound recordings are not the same, as notes. A note-taker may be less obtrusive than a sound recorder; sound recorders can, moreover, be used far more effectively to coach witnesses than a mere transcript, however full. Whether this is a fully effective refutation, however, may be debated.



(4) Photographs, Television and Video Recording

As in the case of sound recordings, there are no statutory provisions dealing with the taking of photographs, television or video recordings. The matter appears to be one governed by the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the same general principles as those relating to sound recordings. It is, however, generally accepted that photographs may not be taken in court, nor may the proceedings be televised or video recorded without permission.

The application of these principles may not necessarily result in a uniform acceptance or rejection of both sound and television or video recordings. A court might well come to the conclusion that, in view of its impact, television or a video recording should never be permitted or permitted in only exceptional circumstances, while sound recording should be widely permitted. Certainly in a case where there is a risk of a recording's being used to coach a future witness, the potential for misuse of a television or a video recording would seem to be greater than with a sound recording. Moreover, the intimidatory effect on witnesses of a television camera is likely to be worse than that of a sound recorder. Further, the degree of interference with court proceedings which television involves would in many (though not all) cases be greater than that of sound recorders

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Well actually...

There is no statute or law prohibiting it. It's an inherent jurisdiction of the court.

o.

There is a statutory instrument which is delegated legislation.

"7. Unless:

(a) otherwise permitted by and in accordance with this Order, or
(b) otherwise permitted by the Court and, in that event, subject to and in accordance with any direction of the Court,

no person, other than the Courts Service or a person authorised by it on its behalf, shall make any record of proceedings otherwise than by written or shorthand notes.”.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is a statutory instrument which is delegated legislation.

"7. Unless:

(a) otherwise permitted by and in accordance with this Order, or
(b) otherwise permitted by the Court and, in that event, subject to and in accordance with any direction of the Court,

no person, other than the Courts Service or a person authorised by it on its behalf, shall make any record of proceedings otherwise than by written or shorthand notes.”.

Good find, is that Order 123 which only applies to the superior courts, meaning the lower courts still apply their inherent powers or is there a provision applying same to the lower courts?

hullaballoo

If the rules of the lower courts are silent on a particular issue (I.e. don't have a commensurate rule) the RSC apply.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

If the rules of the lower courts are silent on a particular issue (I.e. don't have a commensurate rule) the RSC apply.

I must say I have never come accross this, or at least don't remember doing so

Is this provided for via legislation or common law?


Also found District Court Order 12B and Circuit Court Order 67A which like the Superior Court order prohibits recording.


http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/4fcaca8e66b2f9e980257b470036a693?OpenDocument

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/pagescurrent/67AEC43082C6BFA9802574C90033CBA3?opendocument&l=en

hullaballoo

GM228 wrote: »

I must say I have never come accross this, or at least don't remember doing so

Is this provided for via legislation or common law?

I have to say, I don't know where it comes from but it is accepted practice. I will try and find something more solid but you are better at that sort of thing than I am.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

I have to say, I don't know where it comes from but it is accepted practice. I will try and find something more solid but you are better at that sort of thing than I am.

You have me stumped on this one