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

General Irish politics discussion thread

Options
1…94959799100…154

Comments

  • Options
    #2882
    Augme
    Registered Users Posts: 5,921 ✭✭✭Augme


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121532821#Comment_121532821


    Given who Minister is, it's not that surprising. All she can do is react after the fact, she seems to have zero ability to be proactive in anything.



  • Options
    #2883
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121532846#Comment_121532846

    Competence would be saying ‘here is what the government is going to do’ I would have thought.



  • Options
    #2884
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121532821#Comment_121532821

    How do you know she hasn't already consulted the AG about it and needs further consultation? She would be mad to say publicly that she discussed an on going case with the AG for fear it creates circumstances that could favour the judge. You simply assume it is down to lack of competence and want an immediate reaction on the issue



  • Options
    #2885
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121532888#Comment_121532888

    I know because she said it.

    Again, it seems to me somebody favouring zero tolerance would be very clear what a government and specifically her office would do should a judge be convicted of an offence.

    If there is a menu of choices that would apply to all and not to a specific person. So there isn’t much room to be hiding behind ‘a specific case’ excuse.



  • Options
    #2886
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121532915#Comment_121532915

    I know because she said it.

    Not according to the article that you linked to.

    What she does say is that she and the government will consider their options (which suggests they have drawn up a list of options) and get advice from the AG on the next steps (which is the correct approach). You're making the leap to her not having discussed this with the AG in any manner at this point or that she will publicly discuss all conversations she has held regarding an on going case involving a judge. You can be quite sure that the DoJ have been discussing this case with the AG's office for some time given the potential for someone convicted by him to try and use it as an excuse for a mistrial/retrial.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2887
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533050#Comment_121533050

    There should be (and there obviously isn't) a clearly defined path if a judge is convicted.

    It is not case specific, a conviction is a conviction.



  • Options
    #2888
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,704 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533071#Comment_121533071

    Only after the fact. The official position has to wait for the conviction.

    Have there been previous cases of a sitting judge being convicted of such an offence?



  • Options
    #2889
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533071#Comment_121533071

    So you think they already have a fixed plan in place and shouldn't consult with the AG?



  • Options
    #2890
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533076#Comment_121533076

    The offence is immaterial.

    If convicted a Judge cannot hold office with any integrity.



  • Options
    #2891
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533078#Comment_121533078

    Do you think a judge convicted of any offence in a court should continue to hold office?



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2892
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533084#Comment_121533084

    I do not but as it currently stands I don't want a politician acting on the matter unless they are following sound legal advice. Which is what I believe is being done despite your suggestions that the minister is dragging her feet, etc.



  • Options
    #2893
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533096#Comment_121533096

    So if like me you don't think a convicted judge remaining in office is tenable then what advice is needed?

    That there isn't already a clear path for the government to take is worrisome.



  • Options
    #2894
    Rustyman101
    Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭Rustyman101


    I see Leo has been quoted as a believer in free speech but.......there has to be limits which I assume Helen and himself will decide how free our speech will be.

    Sooner we get rid of these clowns the better GA can't come soon enough.

    This country has really descended in the last 2 years.



  • Options
    #2895
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533123#Comment_121533123

    It would be absolutely stupid of any minister to take action against a judge's position without legal advice. Would that be the SF approach or would they take advice?

    As for no fixed procedure, I'm sure there are many potential scenarios without one but not being a legal expert, I'd rather that procedures were put in place for actual scenarios before potential scenarios.



  • Options
    #2896
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533219#Comment_121533219


    Nobody said she should take action without legal advice.

    What I said was she should know and have a pre-ordained legally sound path to follow already mapped out if a judge is convicted of any offence.

    Emphatically state that there is no place in the judiciary for a convicted judge.



  • Options
    #2897
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,442 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    What a pathetic attempt to tie the wrong doing of a Judge to the Govn't. Try harder.



  • Options
    #2898
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533249#Comment_121533249

    Or the government response to a judge being convicted. What he did has nothing to do with the government.



  • Options
    #2899
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533254#Comment_121533254

    You have been trying to blame the minister for not making sudden decisions on what to do or that there is not a plan in place or whatever. Who gives a toss really as long as the action is legally sound?

    Presumably a SF MoJ will document procedures for all potential scenarios if they ever take the reigns 🙄



  • Options
    #2900
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533271#Comment_121533271

    Your SF obsession aside here, the government has had 100 years to make clear what should happen a convicted judge.

    It should be automatic on conviction.

    Is the AG going to give the Minister a menu of options?

    That is untenable under any government, SF or otherwise.



  • Options
    #2901
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,292 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121532821#Comment_121532821

    Your post just confirmed two things: you have your own little hobby horse to beat and you lack experience of decision making in any senior management position. You have no idea what her intentions are nor who she has consulted, just the audacity to assume you know better.

    And engaging someone with such a limited perspective in discussion is a waste of time.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2902
    Augme
    Registered Users Posts: 5,921 ✭✭✭Augme


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533050#Comment_121533050


    I wonder if letting the Judge continue in his job after his release is one of the options.



  • Options
    #2903
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121533513#Comment_121533513

    Well, it certainly seems there may be 'options'.

    Appalling if there are, really.



  • Options
    #2904
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,442 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Everyone needs a little lieutenant. There is the problem of the, separation of powers. Should it be a Court of Judges, in some form, decide on such issues? Is there a lacuna, where new legislation may be required to plug the gap? The US for example, has a problem at present in that it can't remove any errant Supreme Court Judge. Their is no mechanism in the law. Not sure about the UK.



  • Options
    #2905
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,890 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    There are numerous, exceptionally good reasons that a judge should not be immediately or automatically removed by an MoJ on the back of "any" conviction. Not least being the risk of malicious prosecution being used to remove unfavourable judges.

    There most likely is a process in place with a known outcome but the first step in the process is consulting the AG. Following a proper and lawful process even when you "know" the final outcome is rather important.



  • Options
    #2906
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121540259#Comment_121540259

    Are you saying she is consulting the AJ on the integrity of the court case that convicted him?

    If you look you will see a clear path laid out in the constitution.

    Article 35.4 of the Constitution of Ireland states:

    A judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or the High Court shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity and then only upon resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann calling for his removal.

    The Taoiseach shall duly notify the President of any such resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann, and shall send him a copy of every such resolution certified by the Chairman of the House of the Oireachtas by which it shall have been passed.

    Upon receipt of such notification and of copies of such resolutions, the President shall forthwith, by an order under his hand and Seal, remove from office the judge to whom they relate.

    Although Article 35.4 refers specifically only to judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court, the same procedure would have to be followed in order to remove a judge of the Circuit Court or the District Court as these judges are declared to hold office by the same tenure as the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court by, respectively, section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924, and section 20 of the Courts of Justice (District Court) Act 1946.

    To date no judge has ever been removed and the phrase in Article 35.4.1 referring to “stated misbehaviour or incapacity” has never had to be judicially interpreted.



  • Options
    #2907
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,548 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Just before Christmas, there was an article in The Anglo Celt about a discussion that Cavan county councillors had about the war in Gaza. Foreign policy is a matter for the Oireachtas. Why would a county council have a debate about a subject that is outside its remit?



  • Options
    #2908
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,479 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121543479#Comment_121543479

    Did you not know Cavan County Council is a hotbed of foreign policy expertise, Ireland's very own

    https://www.brookings.edu/




  • Options
    #2909
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121543232#Comment_121543232

    The reason for consultation is pretty clearly laid out in the last paragraph there, Francie.

    You know I'm no fan of FF or FG, but I'd much rather our government followed due process than just rushed to a snap decision for the sake of newspaper headlines. It is pretty inevitable that the judge in question will be stepped down, if it takes an extra few days to ensure the correct process is followed, with proper legal consultation...I'm pretty fine with that.



  • Options
    #2910
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121546361#Comment_121546361

    No problem with her consulting whoever, but why not say the government would seek to sack this convicted judge by following the route laid out in the constitution? The government that wants a 'zero tolerance' environment.

    Strange I thought.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2911
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,442 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Wrong again, it's not the Govn't that removes a judge, it's the Dail and Seanad.



Advertisement