Farmer Tom Kennedy

by Seán Ryan Sat Nov 17, 2007 19:33

My heart goes out to Mr. Kennedy.

Contempt is a 'Judge Made' law. This means that it was never before the Oireachteas nor indeed was it before the President of Ireland.

There is a law (which is particularly embraced by ECHR) that states that 'no man may be a judge in his own cause.' In most instances of contempt, including the alleged contempt exhibited by Mr. Kennedy, the Judge is the injured party. Therefore, in my opinion, the honourable Buttimer J. acted as a judge in her own cause.

More law states that nobody can be incarcerated except in circumstances as provided for by law. Every human being accused of a crime has a right to defend themselves in a trial specifically convened to try the actual crime that is alleged to have been committed. ECHR is very clear on this and Irish law accepts and applies ECHR, indeed, even if ECHR didn't exist, Irish law embraces this principle. But not in this case (and in many others), again in my opinion. There has not been a trial that has accepted and has pronounced Mr. Kennedy's guilt, so I'm very confident in my opinion here.

Nine months in jail, being moved around a lot and being put at considerable risk (regarding Mr. Kennedy's age and considering the company he's forced to keep) seems somewhat unfair, to understate it considerably, again in my opinion, for allegedly offending (and allegedly in a deceitful fashion - afterall the truth is neither an act of contempt nor a tort) a fellow citizen. Rapists have been known to have an easier time of it (in recent memory too).

All in all, I wish Mr. Kennedy and his family all the best for Mr. Kennedy's next visit to the High Court. And I hope for justice to manifestly be seen to be done.

by Yu Sat Nov 17, 2007 21:57

Again Indymedia highlights this case while giving us only a scant amount of information (biased).
The role of the court is to dispense the Law, not justice. Has this happened in this case? We don't
know because we haven't got the facts.

by Seán Ryan Sat Nov 17, 2007 22:29

The full details of this case are printed right here. Why Mr. Kennedy was in court to begin with, though it's interesting and newsworthy, is quite irrelevant. He's in jail for alleged contempt. He's not had a trial for the offence that lead to his jailing, hence the sparsity of the article. He'll be back up before the High Court again in the next few days, there might be more news then.

I understand the frustration some readers might feel, but this is one of those occasions when a story that's devestating in its consequences, is very short in the telling.

by Diogenes Sun Nov 18, 2007 02:18

On the face of things, if Habeas Corpus was ignored/refused, it would be disturbing. However, I'm of the opinion that not all the facts are presented here impartially. As for Mr.Ryans' complaint about the company Mr.Kennedy has to keep. I was not under the impression that law-breakers( agree or not) have any sort of veto on their cell-mates. Also elaborate please on the claim that 'Rapists have been known to have an easier time of it'.

by Seán Ryan Sun Nov 18, 2007 03:45

I'd be happy to elaborate on where I said "Rapists have been known to have an easier time of it (in recent memory too)."

Everything I printed to do with this article, I stated as being part of my opinion. Opinion is naturally biased but this is not guaranteed to be a negative, in the way for example, a judge could be described as being biased. I've included arguments as part of my opinion and have not described myself as infallible. So by all means, if my arguments are flawed, point out how and why - anyone? I'd appreciate it. I don't want to exist in a fashion where I'm deceiving myself.

With regard to my elaborating on what I've said.

Firstly someone held for rape in a prison is not considered a criminal. Sexual offenders are considered sick rather than being criminals. They are treated far differently than garden variety criminals. For example: if a normal prisoner assaults another prisoner, the matter must be tried and the person found guilty will be sentenced for it (usually less than 2 years). If a prisoner assaults a sexual offender and is found guilty, it's an automatic 7 or 8 (I'm afraid I'm too tired to look up the exact figure at this moment) years tacked onto his or her time. There are many other differences, but I think this shows my point.

As well as that: All members of the public who are considered to have shown contempt are caught and are held accountable (without being allowed either a defence or a trial) - 100%. On the other-hand, less than one percent of rapes make it as far as a court, all are allowed to defend themselves. Many rapes result in a suspended sentence despite a guilty verdict. Only a few months ago the papers and the television were full of such a case, where the rapist was only given a meaningful sentence afer he spat on his victim on their way home. And that was only because the victim had the guts to speak out about it, reveal her identity and cause a fuss.

I believe that in that particular case, that the 'he came from a good home' shite/excuse also featured strongly. If that scumbag had the presence of mind to travel home seperately and/or not spit on his victim that he had also raped, he'd be free today. Mr. Kennedy didn't so much as lay his hand on anybody, and he was in prison whilst this case was going on, and he's still in prison now. I'm disgusted at this and I can think of no logical or ethical reason as to why I shouldn't be.

by sikovit Sun Nov 18, 2007 07:12

"I was not under the impression that law-breakers( agree or not) have any sort of veto on their cell-mates."

If a judge shows contempt for you, lump it. The average citzen has to put up with it everyday, cops endure a lot of it, esp at closing time, but you just dare disagree with the judge in his courtroom, and off you go to prison without much in the way of due process.
Contempt of court should be totally reworked, especially in this country where too often prosecutors ignore court rulings if the defendant is defending himself, and where state witnesses can commit obvious perjury without being chucked behind bars.

by We the People Mon Nov 19, 2007 09:50

Why should we lump it? I agree that 'contempt of Court' should be totally reworked or even abolished.
Tom Kennedy was denied due process and given 'unjust attack' ,from the Bench.

A meltdown of his Fundamental rights through 'contempt'.
Cops may encounter contempt after hours , but they are not jailed as a result. Lets get the difference right.

by what a non-story Mon Nov 19, 2007 09:54

Why was he asked to leave the land? What is this story about? If you're highlighting some legal technicality then all well and good. When you're less tired I'm sure you'll clarify what you are on about.

by Yu Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:29

It seems Mr. Kennedy refused to obey a direct order of the court. That is why he is in prison.
The order may be unjust but according to our legal system you may not disobey it. You may fight it through the courts - appeals etc, but you may not disobey it. There has to be a final line in court.
Mr. Kennedy, it seems, has crossed it. I repeat: in court - expect the Law, not justice.

by the digger Mon Nov 19, 2007 15:25

He has disobeyed a court order. The sanction for that is imprisonment until he agrees to abide by the court order.

Its easy, isn't it? Whats all the whining about?

by overseer Mon Nov 19, 2007 18:18

When a peasant defies a judges instruction, he is IMMEDIATELY chucked in the slammer.
When a corporation, politician or even a bent judge ignores a court ruling, or the law itself, then there must be some sort of adjournment, appeal to a higher court, or tribunal of inquiry.
The ability to have someone dragged away, recused, or held to account hardly exists at the bottom of the heap. That type of power travels in one direction only.
Take for example, the Mary Kelly case. In this case, the Judge DELIBERATELY gave the jury the impression that in order to find Mary Kelly innocent, they would have to be convinced that the threat she meant to disarm was immediate and local. This is DESPITE the fact that it was POINTED out to him (in the absence of the jury) that those requirements had been REMOVED by an amendment to the act. Mary had a law book to prove this, and it was handed up to the Judge, who feigned surprise, yet still refused to correct this error in the mind of the Jury. Mary was forbidden to raise this matter in the presence of the jury, (who were removed from the room a lot during the trial)
Whatever you think of the rightness or wrongness of the woman's action, the judge was obliged to have her tried under the law AS IT WAS at the time of the offence, not as it was 6 years previously.
There was no immediate remedy available to the defendant. A long drawn out appeals process, with no great consequences for the original Judge Carol Moran, if her rights are upheld.
Justice delayed is justice denied.

by We the People Mon Nov 19, 2007 19:28

Well digger,

if you were 65 years old and spent the last nine months being ferried around prisons ( in order to break you to purge your 'contempt' ) , from cork,limerick,cloverhill,the midlands and back to Mountjoy - for a third time , you would not post such cut and dry attitudes.

This man has been granted a high court order for an injunction after his incarceration , on the solicitor who presently occupies his lands, owen harrahill who refuses to vacate.
I don't see him in prison.

Sure why would you whine , it's easy.

by Observer Mon Nov 19, 2007 20:40

It would seem that many of the postings in this thread contain an enormous amount of ill informed comment.

I do not suppose to know exactly what led to Mr. Kennedy being jailed for contempt but from the little fact advanced so far the following would seem to be plain.

The initial poster alleges that Mr Kennedy in fact won an initial case , (High Court, Giliigan J.) in relation to the land in question in 2005 but that the land is now in the hands of some solicitor or other. Another competant court ( and I use that in the strictly legal sense, ie one that is legally entitled to hear the issue, as opposed to whether any poster thinks the judge did his or her job compenantly), in the form of Buttimer J, heard some form of proceedings (we are not told what type of proceeding or the matter which was in dispute) .

Now ,contempt proceedings are not heard in isolation. Mr. Kennedy must have done something during the course of said legal proceeding before Buttimer J. to warrent his jailing for contempt. The other alternative is that he refused to obey the lawful order of Buttimer J. (in reation to what we are not told ) and was resultantly jailed.

It would help clarify matters for everyone if we were told why Mr. Kennedy was committed to prison for a contempt of court. If a solicitor is not lawfully in posession of the land alleged to be owned by Mr. Kennedy he , Mr. Kennedy has ample recourse through the courts. If, in the alternative, the solicitor is in lawfull possession of the lands I do not see the issue or how it is connected to Mr. Kennedy's committal for contempt unless both are linked in some manner or for some reason not explained to us.

In relation to the larger issue is IS MOST unsual for someone being committeed to prison for simple contempt for such a long period of time without being released by the committing court or a superior court. This also gives me reason for thinking that all the pertinant facts have not been put before us by previous posters.

Could we have more information please!!!!

As to what I canot forgo but to call " the tripe" spouted by Mr. Ryan to the effect that, and I quote

"Firstly someone held for rape in a prison is not considered a criminal. Sexual offenders are considered sick rather than being criminals. They are treated far differently than garden variety criminals. For example: if a normal prisoner assaults another prisoner, the matter must be tried and the person found guilty will be sentenced for it (usually less than 2 years). If a prisoner assaults a sexual offender and is found guilty, it's an automatic 7 or 8 (I'm afraid I'm too tired to look up the exact figure at this moment) years tacked onto his or her time. There are many other differences, but I think this shows my point."

Can I point out that none of the above has any basis in fact. All of the Criminal Justice Acts involving sexual offences are just that., Criminal Justice Acts, they involve the commital of CRIMES. They are not illnesses that deserve imprisonment. They are CRIMES. Would Mr. Ryan please even one of the relevent pieces of legislation please. As to the assertion that they are treated in prison as persons with illness is absolute rubbish. Some are, in fact, segrated from the majority prison population for their own safety as they are at risk (particularly those convicted of offences against young people or children), of attack due to the contempt that most "ODC's" ( ordinary decent criminals) hold them in. There are , additionally, and in fact ,only a handfull of places available in the prison system for the treatment of those convicted of sexual offences and these are particularly reserved for those convicted of paedophelia etc. It's aim is to rehabilitate those so convicted so as do decrease the chance of re-offending on release. In every other regard they are treated exactly the same as any other offender.

It is also completely untrue to assert, simpliciter, that someone who assaults a person convicted of a criminal offence is given a substantially more severe sentence than for assaulting someone not so convicted. Can you please reference any case where the sentencing judge considered that one of the aggrivating factors in sentencing was the fact that the victim was a sexual offender thus allowing the imposition of a 200% increase in the sentence. More to the point can you direct me to the relevent decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal where it was accepted as a factor that could aggrivate the offence?

Are you aware that there are various catagories of assault that can be committed against the person? The old common law catagories of common/grevious bodily harm etc have been abolished but replaced by legislative catatories which range from the mild to the very serious and can carry up to a life sentence depending on the circumstances. I would not presume, if I were you, that the person who received a two year sentence for assault was convicted of the same assault offence as the person who received 7/8 years. However, I presume that these people do not exist and were just an ill informed means of you communicating a point.

Finally, in sentencing in this jusrisdiction, nothing, with the exception of the sentence in murder and various capital offences, is "automatic" as alleged above. It is the overriding principle of sentencing policy in this State that the sentence is imposed in the particular circumstances of the case. It would never be the case that an "automatic" 7/8 years would be tacked on to a sentence being served for assault on a sexual offender, as alleged above. This, I am sorry to say, is absolute and complete nonsense.

Any chance of a little more clarity and fact in this thread!!

by Decan Tue Nov 20, 2007 02:02

Indeed, as some of the other posters have said, there is a lack of information here. But it certainly seems to warrant furthur analysis.

Does the original poster have a date when this this Mr. Kennedy is due to appear before a judge again?

by jacinta tierney - Campaign Ireland Tue Nov 20, 2007 09:56

Campaign Ireland's member Anthony Smailes and another member have insisted Tom Kennedy be presented to the HIgh Court urgently because they believe he has not had a fair trial.

T H I S H E A R I N G T A K E S P L A C E T H I S M O R N I N G A T T H E H I G H C O U R T

by jacinta tierney Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:38

Can Campaign Ireland members reach Carlow in time to represent Tom Kennedy? Why was it necessary to move this elderly man in poor health from Dublin to Carlow?

by Declan Tue Nov 20, 2007 14:45

Any reports on his latest appearance before the high court this morning?

Thank you.

by We the People Tue Nov 20, 2007 18:02

Yes, the latest is that Tom Kennedy appeared in Carlow Circuit Court this morning before Judge Olive Buttimer. He was heard at 1.14p.m. when most in the Court room went for lunch.
He was afforded Audience of approx.20minutes when he explained that he had a High Court Order from Judge Gilligan in 2005 that injuncted his relation in the matter ,Owen Harrahill ,vacate the Lands in question ,approx.80 Acres between Thurles and Templemore.
It was argued by Tom that Councel for Harrahill,Patrick Treacy , said it was an ex parte Order by Gilligan and was never received.

To complicate the issue further , it was mentioned that Judge Herbert overturned Gilligan's Order - both are High Court Judges and it was argured that the Supreme Court would overturn such an unlawful move.

In July 205 Judge Barry White jumped in and adjuorned the matter and suggested a Letter be sent to Harrahill rather than him be served.
In jumps Judge Abbot who requests that Harrahill should be served with Gilligan's Order. Gilligan then asks for an inquiry. This was adjourned three times to allow Harrahill time to defend. They did not appear as they claim that they were not served.

It (case)appears before Gilligan again and he remembers that his order was not issued ex-parte and that he was not about to change the Order.
Mentioned again ,was that Herbert had no Jurisdiction to vacate Gilligan's Order - it's , a matter for the Supreme Court.

Herby stated that there is nothing he can do about it now - vacating Gilligan's Order.
Mentioned was the fact that such a vacate is no decision at all - unlawful.

( I really should have recorder all this as it is not verbatim - I can only catch so much by Pen).

Tom argued that his Constitutional rights were violated for lack of due process , breach of Natural Justice, denied access to re-butt the issue and the rest.

Buttimer stated that...' I injuncted you from the Land so as to prevent injury to both Parties and keep the Peace, as there were some serious breaches of the Peace at these Lands and if you cannot guarantee me today that you wwill desist from going there , my Order of Contempt will still stand . You need to persue this case through the proper channels and you cannot do tha in Prison`.

Tom refused to guarantee the Judge.

So,there is the latest update on the matter.

by W. Finnerty. Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:09

With reference to your comment above that the "The role of the court is to dispense the Law, not justice", I'm really curious as to where this piece of legal theory comes from?

Is there any reference to it in Bunreacht na hEireann (Constitution of the Republic of Ireland)? - or in any of the United Nations or Council of Europe human-rights legislation that the Republic of Ireland has ratified?

The reason this issue concerns me is that your statement conjures up images in my mind of the kind of "law" I imagine the "brownshirts" would have operated a century or so ago.

By "brownshirts" I mean the "SA Sturmabteilung", which played a key role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s. (More information on this subject can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung )

by Damien Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:56

William,

Law, not justice is a standard maxim and makes complete sense. it originates from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who remarked : "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice".

Have a read of the link I've added at the bottom to see why judges must dispense law and not justice.

The maxim is outlined in the constitution where the judicial oath requires judges to "uphold the Constitution and the laws" ... note the key word is law, not justice.

by G.O. Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:22

That article, (well penned propoganda) mostly demonstrates why in ORDER for an authoritarian STATE to have stability, the LAW rather than JUSTICE must be considered supreme.
Of course it was written by a Chief Counsel for NIXON, who (like many heads of State) decided that he was above the law, while preaching morality and law to everyone else, even during the secret illegal bombing of Cambodia, and Watergate burglaries.

In reality, for society to be stable, Justice is more important.
But, being as the violence, or power only flows one way in a hierarchy, that hierarchy offers the ordinary citizen little ability to hold corrupt judges to account, or corrupt leaders, or indeed the system, and will pervert its own laws to defend that status quo.

We don't have a department of LAW. We have a department of justice, equality and "law reform".
Presumably the laws must be amended from time to time, in order to be just, and of course, Judges in their discretion, can help shape that process.

In American political theory, it was argued that to be free and just, that the laws, bill of rights, and limitations on state power should be applied in such a way, that even a government of devils could not corrupt the state.
In Fascist states they prefer to limit the law, that even a compassionate fair minded judge, if he sticks to the law of that fascist state, cannot dispense justice to someone who opposes the system.

by Yu Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:26

If I might add: Justice is a concept and is therefore subjective. For example 'justice' in a Middle-Eastern state is very different to 'justice' in the West.
Any court could not operate effectively according to such a subjective method.
It is for our legislators to express the societal notion of justice in our laws, according to our constitution, and for our courts to administer those laws.

by W. Finnerty. Wed Nov 21, 2007 14:04

"Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society."

The above piece of text has been taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

by Yu Wed Nov 21, 2007 14:21

Indeed it does William. The problem is this - like justice, who gets to define 'proper'?

by G.O. Wed Nov 21, 2007 14:28

"It is for our legislators to express the societal notion of justice in our laws, according to our constitution, and for our courts to administer those laws."
Most of our laws these days are simply rubber stamping something dreamed up by unelected commissioners of the EU. But that's a different debate.

And yet, where two pieces of law conflict in a case where the government has a vested interest, eg property, allegation of crime, contempt, v human rights, if a judge decides to favour the state, the remedies are NOT immediate to restore them.
The state can deny rights quickly, and the apparatus to restore them is grindingly slow, because 'we must consider these things carefully'.
Even though, an ounce of prevention, when making the law would be the most advised path.. and there have been countless times in this country of passing obviously flawed laws for vested or political purposes.
There is no shortage of laws on the books. Why the rush to legislate more, when there is little enforcement, and little supervision of the consitutionality of much of what comes out of our legislative branch.

The point is, there is no NEED to commit a man for contempt in this case.
It is fairer for the wheels of justice to pay proper attention to the whole of the case, and to let his man free to argue his case.
If he violates a court order, that's one thing,
But jailing him for not giving an _undertaking_ to abide by it is nothing more than the shadowy concept of 'pre-emptive justice' from the bench.

by Yu Wed Nov 21, 2007 15:01

Buttimer stated that...' I injuncted you from the Land so as to prevent injury to both Parties and keep the Peace, as there were some serious breaches of the Peace at these Lands and if you cannot guarantee me today that you will desist from going there , my Order of Contempt will still stand . You need to pursue this case through the proper channels and you cannot do that in Prison`

The judge, in this case, has spelled out her reasoning for jailing TK - to prevent somebody getting hurt, or worse. Should she turn a blind eye to this aspect of the case? She has told TK effectively to 'cop on' and use the legal system to pursue his case. TK seems to be intimating that he will take matters into his own hands. I'm sorry for anybody who is brought before the courts on a matter such as this but TK has not done himself any favours with what appears to be a pig-headed approach.

by Seán Ryan Wed Nov 21, 2007 15:21

"... there were some serious breaches of the Peace at these Lands ..."

When was Mr. Kennedy found guilty of a breach of the peace?

With regard to the courts being courts of law - quite correct. But to allege that justice is some unsubstantiated component of this; utter crap. Law exists to facilitate justice and no law can be made without a clear concept of the form of justice it is supposed to bring about. The law exists so that justice can be done and be seen to be done. The law is supposed to perform two duties, the first to act as a deterrent and secondly when it fails to deter, it exists to facilitate justice.

by Seán Ryan Wed Nov 21, 2007 16:59

I've just spotted Damien's answer to Mr. Finnerty above where he quotes article 34.5 (the judge's oath) in order to suggest that it is not the court's business to administer justice.

It's funny (or indeed suspect) that he would have skipped over 34.1 to 34.5 to do this as Article 34.1 explicitly states:

"Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public."

by Damien Wed Nov 21, 2007 20:49

I can't see the issue you have Sean. We all agree that laws are a vehicle to implement "justice". We all agree that judges "judge" based on law.

The confusion arises when people try to suggest that a judge can take natural justice into account when deciding a case. This is untrue - he must consider only the law - this is why a judge swears to uphold the law, and not justice.

For example a defendent may get off on a technicality such as the date on a summons being wrong - this is not "justice" if he would have otherwise been guilty beyond reasonable doubt; it is the rule of law.

by Seán Ryan Thu Nov 22, 2007 00:57

Maybe it's a case of us pronouncing potato and tomato differently.

The law does indeed provide for a case to be dropped in the case of a technical issue like an incorrectly issued summons being issued. Although this particular (fraid I cannot recall the specific case off hand, but it always struck me as interesting considering that Curtain J. was released on a technicality) trait of the court is subject to some tests before before a case will be dropped. A technicality facilitating a case being dropped, is I believe, an act that supposedly prevents an injustice from happening simply because any act to pursue a case with tainted evidence would remove the presumption of innocence. But, I agree to a certain degree, that is a potato tomato type argument.

I think we'd both agree that as well as law guiding a judge, there is a great degree of lattitude afforded a judge in terms of exercising his or her discretion. I believe discretion must (or rather should) be exercised in order to administer justice. Otherwise injustice is the goal.

by Legal Clerk Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:33

'I think we'd both agree that as well as law guiding a judge, there is a great degree of lattitude afforded a judge in terms of exercising his or her discretion. I believe discretion must (or rather should) be exercised in order to administer justice. Otherwise injustice is the goal.'

But the judge delivers (through using his discretion) what is in his opinion justice. Thats the whole point. You may disagree with his decision but his discretion has been used. The fact remains that this farmer has chosen to pursue his case outside of the law. Other parties have sought the protection of the law and a judge has granted such protection to them.

The farmer has chosen to ignore the court orders; that is why he was imprisoned. He has the options of pursuing his own case through the courts or he could appeal his imprisonment to the supreme court.

by W. Finnerty. Fri Nov 23, 2007 16:57

"Genuine justice is about the protection of the inalienable rights of each and every individual human being - and - the punishment (for deterrent purposes) of the inalienable wrongs of ALL individuals who violate such rights." (Excerpt from http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83999#comment206640 )

"In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt
But, being seasoned with a gracious voice,
Obscures the show of evil?"

"Dealing with injustice" (by Dublin based psychologist Marie Murray):
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/MarieMurray19April2006/IrishTimesArticle.htm

by Damien Fri Nov 23, 2007 18:49

I have to disagree regarding the discretion which you feel judges have. The only discretion they have is discretion given to them in law - such as deciding on what is "reasonable". They however, could have discretion in sentencing, where the law permits it - such as offences where there is no mandatory sentence.

by W. Finnerty. Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:03

I don't think juries have been mentioned so far in this thread?

Personally, I believe juries have an extremely important role to play in the provision of justice (genuine justice that is).

Among other things, I believe it should be COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for judges to be able to imprison people for more than a few days without the approval of a lawful jury.

Otherwise, judges can abuse their "powers" with impunity, and thus perversely become the instruments of INJUSTICE (rather than justice).

A further consideration relating to this point is that unlike politicians, judges cannot (as things stand at present in the Republic of Ireland) be voted out of office at election time.

For anybody interested, some information on the the very long history of "trial by jury" can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#History_of_jury_trials

by Damien Sat Nov 24, 2007 14:13

William,

Are you joking? Are you proposing some sort of popularity contest for judges ? Like the Eurovision for judges, or pop idol?

I'm going to let you in on a little secret .... NOBODY would vote for the judges that sent them to prison. NOBODY would vote for judges that gave custody of their children to a former partner. NOBODY would vote for the judges that sent their relations to prison.

Do you not think that perhaps judges might end up making decisions just because they are popular rather than just?

Your ideas are really starting to become rediculous.

by Yu Sat Nov 24, 2007 14:30

William has a valid point.
Judges are political appointees; nobody should be surprised if some judges occasionally behave as such.
It is high time for an overhaul of the process of judicial appointments.
Personally I think that appointments should be made by a panel of made up of legal peers and of
suitable citizens and should be open to regular review.
Judiciary and state are supposed to be separate but I fail to see how this can be the case as
long as politicians decide who sits on the bench.

by Damien Sat Nov 24, 2007 15:13

Hi Yu,

Care to give an example in ireland where "judges can abuse their "powers" with impunity" ?

Have any examples where they have "perversely become the instruments of INJUSTICE" ?

Any examples of political bias in judgements?

by Observer Sun Nov 25, 2007 00:12

More uninformed comment here i see.

For Yu' s infrormation, and for william indeed, judges in this State are appointed as follows.

An advertisement is placed in the national press and solicitors and barristers of the relevent period of practice, 10 years, are invited to apply. They apply and are considered by the Judicial Appointments Commission which consists of the Presidents of the district, circuit, high courts and the chief justice. Also on the commmittee is a representative of the bar council and the law society. Also included are three members of the public. (one of whom at the moment is Olive Braiden, of the rape crisis centre and human rights commission). They give a list of seven names who they think appointable, in no particular order of preference, to cabinet and then the cabinet makes the decision.

There is provision in the legislation for the government to appoint outside of this list of seven ( so they can appoint a sitting attorney general as used to be the practice) but in the history of the judicial appointments board this has never happened. The only exception to this is when appointing the presidents of the courts from amongst the serving judiciary or appointing a judge from a lower to a higher court.

Now you know the facts you can go back to your argument.

by jacinta - campaign ireland Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:52

Damien

Check out Michael Mescalls case on the VILP website to get an clear example of the work of a corrupt judge. To get back to Tom Kennedys case, I would like to point out that if the solicitor now in possession of his land has come into this property illegally there is no point of recourse until a body to monitor the legal profession is established.

by Damien Sun Nov 25, 2007 14:47

Thanks for the information Observer, from what you say, the way things work now is almost exactly as Yu was proposing they should work.

Jacinta perhaps you could post an actual link detailing the corruption and explaining why an appeal to a higher court wouldnt have found that the original judge erred in law?

by Yu Sun Nov 25, 2007 23:37

'the way things work now is almost exactly as Yu was proposing they should work.'

- not even close

http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/docs/view.php?doc=863

by cc Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:42

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/judges-losing-grip-on-power-1038669.html

http://iccl.ie/DB_Data/news/ICCLcallsfornewCounciltoStrengthenJudicialAccountability_57.htm

by jacinta Mon Nov 26, 2007 18:54

Damien,

I read the Mescalls case on the www.crookedlawyers.com website Then I rang them and they explained the case to me.

Why should they have to go to the supreme court?

They are both a little older and they say that they have absolutely no confidence in the Irish Legal System. The barrister that fought their case was shocked. The English solicitors to whom they have shown their paperwork we