Article 34 of the Constitution

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,366
Article 34 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."

I am constantly appalled at the degree to which reported cases fail (without plausible explanation) to identify those arrested, charged with and found guilty or innocent of crimes. Sometimes the victim is not name, for no obvious reason other than they would prefer if people did not know their business. But that is not what our constitution says.

So I suggest that in this thread we ask the question who?

So, who did this lady steal 1m from?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dublin-personal-assistant-who-stole-more-than-1-million-from-employers-is-jailed-for-four-years-36264501.html
 
Last edited:


The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,040
Why do you need to know the victims names?
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,415
Article 34 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."

I am constantly appalled at the degree to which reported cases fail (without plausible explanation) to identify those arrested, charged with and found guilty or innocent of crimes. Sometimes the victim is not name, for no obvious reason other than they would prefer if people did not know their business. But that is not what our constitution says.

So I suggest that in this thread we ask the question who?

So, who did this lady steal 1m from?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dublin-personal-assistant-who-stole-more-than-1-million-from-employers-is-jailed-for-four-years-36264501.html
I did wonder about that.
Other than for victim protection issues, which hardly apply in the case of theft, isn't it as important to identify the accuser as it is the accused?

Or is it the case that the media are doing the hiding? Now that would be interesting.
 

nationalsday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
3,726
I presume that they're all included on a very long indictment. Would also constitute a very long and boring newspaper court report. Ask the court reporter, or his/her editor..
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
Article 34 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."

I am constantly appalled at the degree to which reported cases fail (without plausible explanation) to identify those arrested, charged with and found guilty or innocent of crimes. Sometimes the victim is not name, for no obvious reason other than they would prefer if people did not know their business. But that is not what our constitution says.

So I suggest that in this thread we ask the question who?

So, who did this lady steal 1m from?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dublin-personal-assistant-who-stole-more-than-1-million-from-employers-is-jailed-for-four-years-36264501.html
Is that not down to the journalists concerned?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
Article 34 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."

I am constantly appalled at the degree to which reported cases fail (without plausible explanation) to identify those arrested, charged with and found guilty or innocent of crimes. Sometimes the victim is not name, for no obvious reason other than they would prefer if people did not know their business. But that is not what our constitution says.

So I suggest that in this thread we ask the question who?

So, who did this lady steal 1m from?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dublin-personal-assistant-who-stole-more-than-1-million-from-employers-is-jailed-for-four-years-36264501.html
The constitutions provisions have been upheld.
Justice was seen to be done in public.

The woman is identified and also her crime to which she pleaded guilty.

Only an officious and truly nosy busybody like you would want to know the victims identity.

Next you will want to know the details of the matrimonial, and children's courts.

Get a life ffs.

:roll:
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,415
The constitutions provisions have been upheld.
Justice was seen to be done in public.

The woman is identified and also her crime to which she pleaded guilty.

Only an officious and truly nosy busybody like you would want to know the victims identity.

Next you will want to know the details of the matrimonial, and children's courts.

Get a life ffs.

:roll:
Should every victim be entitled to anonymity, if that's what they want?
Or are we looking at norms being breached for somebody well-connected?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
Should every victim be entitled to anonymity, if that's what they want?
Or are we looking at norms being breached for somebody well-connected?
If a victim requests anonymity for whatever reason then the court should grant it unless there are compelling reasons in the public interest to disclose same.

It is perfectly natural and normal that victims of some crimes wish their identity kept confidential.

The victim in a trial is of minor importance from the legal pov.

Prurient and vested interests expressed by the OP want every unfortunate victims name blazoned all over the newspapers.
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,040
The constitutions provisions have been upheld.
Justice was seen to be done in public.

The woman is identified and also her crime to which she pleaded guilty.

Only an officious and truly nosy busybody like you would want to know the victims identity.

Next you will want to know the details of the matrimonial, and children's courts.

Get a life ffs.

:roll:
Agreeing with you twice in a week. Something in the water.

The OP is confusing gossipy celeb watching with the constitution
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,366
I'm a big believer in the idea that every right comes with a concomitant duty.

The press should have a right to investigate and report without fear or favour - but they also have a duty to tell the full story.

The story cited in the OP is like a match report that identifies only one team.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,887
It identifies the criminal on one side. The “other side” is the state. The victim they’re acting for isn’t material to this story outside of the troglodytes who think justice should different for victims based on how much they like them as individuals.

There’s a difference between “the public are interested” and “the public interest”. And you’re misunderstanding the constitution on a pretty broad scale.
 
Last edited:

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,040
I'm a big believer in the idea that every right comes with a concomitant duty.

The press should have a right to investigate and report without fear or favour - but they also have a duty to tell the full story.

The story cited in the OP is like a match report that identifies only one team.
The other 'team' is the prosecution.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,027
I'm a big believer in the idea that every right comes with a concomitant duty.

The press should have a right to investigate and report without fear or favour - but they also have a duty to tell the full story.

The story cited in the OP is like a match report that identifies only one team.
Ok. I would imagine that there were pretty lax controlls in that company, just a nagging doubt that they should have more cash in the bank.

But lots of businesses lack controls.

Wonder how a cheque addressed to Gin soaked ltd could be lodged to Mr H. Hunter though.

Cheques "to cash?

I'm on the fence here......
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,366

caledhel

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Messages
2,151
Dial it back to the Magna Carta, a document that founded the rule of law in the common law system. It's important to remember that this was formulated in the time of a tyrant and its various articles deal with abuses and techniques that are used to coerce and exploit people. Conviction without due process by incompetent people is one of these techniques. A public trial is one of the remedies as is due process.

---

17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in some fixed place.

38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his "law", without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.

49. We will immediately restore all hostages and charters delivered to us by Englishmen, as sureties of the peace of faithful service.

The Magna Carta 1215

Due process

The guaranty of due process means no accused is punished without an orderly and adequate procedure that is applicable uniformly in all cases.

Under a due process, every accused gets an advance notice of trial, and an opportunity to be present, to be heard, and to defend himself or herself.

It also includes the rights to (1) legal counsel, (2) confront and cross examine the witnesses, (3) refuse self-incriminating testimony, and (4) have a crime proven by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What is due process? definition and meaning - BusinessDictionary.com

---

And also to know the nature of the charge.

This is all to avoid the justice system being overwhelmed by malicious, duplicitous charges. It is also to ensure that criminal potentates are subject to legal punishment and censure.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top