New book: Judicial appointments are political, what's the harm, how might it be stopped ?

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Yes



Hmmm



But wtf ?



Ah yes... Rugby School will do that

But come on...to deny a whole country a nice judicial appointments system ?

Cyp
 


cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
The Judicial Appointments Bill has been a long time coming, and is still in bad shape

Appointments in the lower courts especially are usually on the basis of political patronage/tribe

Many have been made whilst this Bill has been gestating and more can be expected before the birth of the Act. The pace here is simply not good enough.

Cyp
The health of the Bill has not improved much

Cyp
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,464

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,464
Irish Times reporting Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan has just said the bill needs further substantial amendment and will be delayed at least until the Autumn.

Comes after Senator Norris and ex PD current Senatoe Victor Boyhan submitted amendments to the bill and then withdrew them while Senator Michael McDowell, who has led the fillibuster of the bill was outside the chamber. Led to Flanagan saying it underlinede the status of McDowell's "underlings", and Ivana Bacik responded the remark was "uncalled for".

Expecting lawyers to support reform of the legal profession was always a big ask. We have the most expensive legal system in Europe and next to no transparency in how judges are appointed.

Comes as the Seanad debate on the bill finally moved onto the next stage after a debate of 100 hours (!). In total, 25 amendments were placed and then withdrawn, which allows them to be considered again at Report stage.
 
Last edited:

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,012
Irish Times reporting Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan has just said the bill needs further substantial amendment and will be delayed at least until the Autumn.

Comes after Senator Norris and ex PD current Senatoe Victor Boyhan submitted amendments to the bill and then withdrew them while Senator Michael McDowell, who has led the fillibuster of the bill was outside the chamber. Led to Flanagan saying it underlinede the status of McDowell's "underlings", and Ivana Bacik responded the remark was "uncalled for".

Expecting lawyers to support reform of the legal profession was always a big ask. We have the most expensive legal system in Europe and next to no transparency in how judges are appointed.

Comes as the Seanad debate on the bill finally moved onto the next stage after a debate of 100 hours (!). In total, 25 amendments were placed and then withdrawn, which allows them to be considered again at Report stage.
FRIVOLOUS COURT CASE SAGA
I've been following progress of a case through an acquaintance who knows the divorced couple in the case. Every two months or so for about two years, the wife has to return to court for new hearings thanks to the husband's lame excuses for refusing to hand over keys to the house and a series of silly objections he has been raising. The judge kept threating him with unspecified consequences if he refused to produce the keys but didn't carry out the threats.
It seems the judges can allow frivolous objections to delay a conclusion to hearings indefinitely. The main disincentive for such behaviour is court costs but the defendant in this case is obsessed with depriving his former wife of her share of the house.
This case reminded me of what an Irish law professor reportedly said to his law class to illustrate the law's delay (a phrase of Shakespeare): "If a man steals your house, just give it to him, don't go to court".
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top