Planet Rugby Forum

ticketlessinseattle wrote:its f**king sickening to see that fuckin paedo get off like this ; the fact that its being appealed only adds insult, the fact that he admitted it and the victim is still living this nightmare is disgraceful....and when the talk about his ill health ?...the wit kant is smoking outside the courtroom ! and geebag mother should be done as an accomplice

anonymous_joe wrote:
There's already an in-built procedure called an appeal.

Further to that, the decision by the judge may highlight flaws in the sentencing system that might lead to action from the government. Win/win if the suspension is quashed on appeal.

anonymous_joe wrote:

ticketlessinseattle wrote:its f**king sickening to see that fuckin paedo get off like this ; the fact that its being appealed only adds insult, the fact that he admitted it and the victim is still living this nightmare is disgraceful....and when the talk about his ill health ?...the wit kant is smoking outside the courtroom ! and geebag mother should be done as an accomplice

The leniency of the sentence is being appealled.

thekingsnotdead wrote:I'm assuming we can all be investigated and arrested if we say anything particularly defamatory against Paul Carney, so I'd be careful enough.

Duff Paddy wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:
There's already an in-built procedure called an appeal.

Further to that, the decision by the judge may highlight flaws in the sentencing system that might lead to action from the government. Win/win if the suspension is quashed on appeal.

Win/win? That's one dark sense of humour you have there.

waguser wrote:

thekingsnotdead wrote:I'm assuming we can all be investigated and arrested if we say anything particularly defamatory against Paul Carney, so I'd be careful enough.

And justifiably so in my case

I hold him and his judgement in complete contempt

thekingsnotdead wrote:

waguser wrote:

thekingsnotdead wrote:I'm assuming we can all be investigated and arrested if we say anything particularly defamatory against Paul Carney, so I'd be careful enough.

And justifiably so in my case

I hold him and his judgement in complete contempt

As do I. But, you can hold in contempt all you like, there's still a chance you'll get jail time if you accuse him of anything on here.

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

thekingsnotdead wrote:

waguser wrote:

thekingsnotdead wrote:I'm assuming we can all be investigated and arrested if we say anything particularly defamatory against Paul Carney, so I'd be careful enough.

And justifiably so in my case

I hold him and his judgement in complete contempt

As do I. But, you can hold in contempt all you like, there's still a chance you'll get jail time if you accuse him of anything on here.

I'll take my chances...it would be ultimate justification for the thread

goose81 wrote:He should now be investigated for allowing public/media outrage to so clearly influence this decision.

Do judges still need all summer off, asks Shatter
Minister targets traditional break taken over August and September


Jerome Reilly – 12 May 2013

Justice Minister Alan Shatter has ramped up the pressure on the judiciary by questioning why the courts take two months off during the summer as well as enjoying a spring vacation which closes the courts for eight working days after Easter.

In what will be seen as a landmark address to the Law Society's annual conference, the Justice Minister strongly defended the right of the Government to demand the courts work efficiently and offer value for money. He said that this should not be interpreted as an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

Mr Shatter told delegates in Killarney that his comments should not be seen as a criticism of judges as the practice has been on-going for nearly two centuries.

"I hope I will not be misunderstood and there will not be a suggestion of some new controversy if I merely raise the question of the appropriateness in this day and age of a court vacation period which at least formally incorporates the entirety of August and September and of the additional Whit vacation period that interrupts court sittings for eight working days between the Easter and the long vacation," he told the conference yesterday.

"As these vacation arrangements have existed since at least the 19th Century, my reference to them should not be seen in any way as a criticism of our judiciary but I do believe it is legitimate to ask questions in today's world," he said.

Mr Shatter, who clashed with judges last month over pay, added that he thought it was reasonable to reflect on the question of vacations .

But Mr Shatter added that he was aware of the fact that during court vacation periods members of the High Court remained on duty to deal with emergency matters and that the Supreme Court has sat on several occasions during holiday periods in recent years.

"It is, and has to be, a concern of government and of parliament that courts operate in a cost-effective manner; that substantial delay does not occur in the hearing of court proceedings and that courts sit annually for a minimum number of days.

"I have an obligation to do what is possible within my remit to ensure that we have an efficient and cost-effective court system that facilitates the determination of cases without undue delay, in the interests of all of those who find themselves before our courts. This should not be misinterpreted to suggest that Government or parliament is in any way entitled to interfere in the hearing and determination of cases before our courts," he added.

The speech is further sign of the strained relations between the judiciary and the Fine Gael/Labour Coalition.

Last month there was a public spat between the judiciary and the Government over pay, with the Association of Judges in Ireland accusing the Government of cutting judges' pay and pensions without introducing appropriate safeguards to ensure their continued independence.

Mr Shatter hit back, denying there was political interference in the courts and saying it was "unfortunate" if constitutionally sanctioned pay reductions that have affected the judiciary were presented as an attack on judicial independence.

"We had a referendum on the issue," he declared.

"The overwhelming majority of people were of the view that whilst judges undertake vitally important and onerous duties, this shouldn't render the judiciary immune from the consequences of the State's enormous fiscal difficulties," Mr Shatter added.

Irish Independent

Duff Paddy wrote:Another one for Wag - I had no idea that Irish judges get 2 months leave every Summer.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/do ... 59832.html

Do judges still need all summer off, asks Shatter
Minister targets traditional break taken over August and September


Jerome Reilly – 12 May 2013

Justice Minister Alan Shatter has ramped up the pressure on the judiciary by questioning why the courts take two months off during the summer as well as enjoying a spring vacation which closes the courts for eight working days after Easter.

In what will be seen as a landmark address to the Law Society's annual conference, the Justice Minister strongly defended the right of the Government to demand the courts work efficiently and offer value for money. He said that this should not be interpreted as an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

Mr Shatter told delegates in Killarney that his comments should not be seen as a criticism of judges as the practice has been on-going for nearly two centuries.

"I hope I will not be misunderstood and there will not be a suggestion of some new controversy if I merely raise the question of the appropriateness in this day and age of a court vacation period which at least formally incorporates the entirety of August and September and of the additional Whit vacation period that interrupts court sittings for eight working days between the Easter and the long vacation," he told the conference yesterday.

"As these vacation arrangements have existed since at least the 19th Century, my reference to them should not be seen in any way as a criticism of our judiciary but I do believe it is legitimate to ask questions in today's world," he said.

Mr Shatter, who clashed with judges last month over pay, added that he thought it was reasonable to reflect on the question of vacations .

But Mr Shatter added that he was aware of the fact that during court vacation periods members of the High Court remained on duty to deal with emergency matters and that the Supreme Court has sat on several occasions during holiday periods in recent years.

"It is, and has to be, a concern of government and of parliament that courts operate in a cost-effective manner; that substantial delay does not occur in the hearing of court proceedings and that courts sit annually for a minimum number of days.

"I have an obligation to do what is possible within my remit to ensure that we have an efficient and cost-effective court system that facilitates the determination of cases without undue delay, in the interests of all of those who find themselves before our courts. This should not be misinterpreted to suggest that Government or parliament is in any way entitled to interfere in the hearing and determination of cases before our courts," he added.

The speech is further sign of the strained relations between the judiciary and the Fine Gael/Labour Coalition.

Last month there was a public spat between the judiciary and the Government over pay, with the Association of Judges in Ireland accusing the Government of cutting judges' pay and pensions without introducing appropriate safeguards to ensure their continued independence.

Mr Shatter hit back, denying there was political interference in the courts and saying it was "unfortunate" if constitutionally sanctioned pay reductions that have affected the judiciary were presented as an attack on judicial independence.

"We had a referendum on the issue," he declared.

"The overwhelming majority of people were of the view that whilst judges undertake vitally important and onerous duties, this shouldn't render the judiciary immune from the consequences of the State's enormous fiscal difficulties," Mr Shatter added.

Irish Independent

anonymous_joe wrote:The courts shutting does not equate to judges not working. And he fully knows that.

anonymous_joe wrote:The courts shutting does not equate to judges not working. And he fully knows that.

Duff Paddy wrote:Another one for Wag - I had no idea that Irish judges get 2 months leave every Summer.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/do ... 59832.html

Do judges still need all summer off, asks Shatter
Minister targets traditional break taken over August and September


Jerome Reilly – 12 May 2013

Justice Minister Alan Shatter has ramped up the pressure on the judiciary by questioning why the courts take two months off during the summer as well as enjoying a spring vacation which closes the courts for eight working days after Easter.

In what will be seen as a landmark address to the Law Society's annual conference, the Justice Minister strongly defended the right of the Government to demand the courts work efficiently and offer value for money. He said that this should not be interpreted as an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

Mr Shatter told delegates in Killarney that his comments should not be seen as a criticism of judges as the practice has been on-going for nearly two centuries.

"I hope I will not be misunderstood and there will not be a suggestion of some new controversy if I merely raise the question of the appropriateness in this day and age of a court vacation period which at least formally incorporates the entirety of August and September and of the additional Whit vacation period that interrupts court sittings for eight working days between the Easter and the long vacation," he told the conference yesterday.

"As these vacation arrangements have existed since at least the 19th Century, my reference to them should not be seen in any way as a criticism of our judiciary but I do believe it is legitimate to ask questions in today's world," he said.

Mr Shatter, who clashed with judges last month over pay, added that he thought it was reasonable to reflect on the question of vacations .

But Mr Shatter added that he was aware of the fact that during court vacation periods members of the High Court remained on duty to deal with emergency matters and that the Supreme Court has sat on several occasions during holiday periods in recent years.

"It is, and has to be, a concern of government and of parliament that courts operate in a cost-effective manner; that substantial delay does not occur in the hearing of court proceedings and that courts sit annually for a minimum number of days.

"I have an obligation to do what is possible within my remit to ensure that we have an efficient and cost-effective court system that facilitates the determination of cases without undue delay, in the interests of all of those who find themselves before our courts. This should not be misinterpreted to suggest that Government or parliament is in any way entitled to interfere in the hearing and determination of cases before our courts," he added.

The speech is further sign of the strained relations between the judiciary and the Fine Gael/Labour Coalition.

Last month there was a public spat between the judiciary and the Government over pay, with the Association of Judges in Ireland accusing the Government of cutting judges' pay and pensions without introducing appropriate safeguards to ensure their continued independence.

Mr Shatter hit back, denying there was political interference in the courts and saying it was "unfortunate" if constitutionally sanctioned pay reductions that have affected the judiciary were presented as an attack on judicial independence.

"We had a referendum on the issue," he declared.

"The overwhelming majority of people were of the view that whilst judges undertake vitally important and onerous duties, this shouldn't render the judiciary immune from the consequences of the State's enormous fiscal difficulties," Mr Shatter added.

Irish Independent

MrBunhead wrote:That's pretty interesting Joe, I didn't know that.

anonymous_joe wrote:Duff, the basic problem is this - and Shatter even alludes to it - we're dealing with a 19th century system that actually works quite well. (After all, the Dáil is little different to the British system, and that's centuries old, old doesn't mean useless.)

At a basic level, judges deal with cases. The mechanics of that are fairly simple, barristers make legal submissions in a case, judges then decide on that. The problem is fairly simple - how? Well, they basically write essays. A proper High Court judgement on a point of law would probably rival a dissertation in terms of length and detail. There'll probably be detailed analysis of Irish law, English law, maybe other parts of the common law world. It takes enormous amounts of time, energy and expertise.

The problem is, judges don't have any time set aside for this. They do it in their own time, because that's how the system operates. For the record, that's why court hours are always so short - barristers and judges needed the rest of the time to get ready for said court appearances. In terms of time, if the courts were open for the summer, the HC judges wouldn't be able to sit because they wouldn't have their judgements done. Alternatively, they could sit and not give judgements, leading to the collapse of our legal system.

If you hired more registrars and built more courts (which they won't do) then you could probably have the courts run without a break, but you'd then need to set aside time for the judges to actually write their judgements.

And Camroc - who gives a fudge where they work? One of the English Supreme Court judges (who's Scottish, the ould Law Lords were a complicated bunch, I don't really know where the British system starts and the English/Wales one begins at this stage) does all of his judgements in his gaff in the Highlands rather than London. If you could work in Terenure or Antibes, where would you go? Different strokes and all that. Anyway, most of them are floating about Dublin on call about half the summer anyway, because there always have to be High Court judges on duty, like doctors.

anonymous_joe wrote:

MrBunhead wrote:That's pretty interesting Joe, I didn't know that.

Hardly anyone does. Judges in particular have always been very bad at publicising what it is they actually do.

thekingsnotdead wrote:I'm on jury duty in three weeks time. Don't know what the case is, but I feel like voting guilty

MrJonno wrote:

thekingsnotdead wrote:I'm on jury duty in three weeks time. Don't know what the case is, but I feel like voting guilty

This is the kind of approach that fks up our legal system. Making snap decisions without any regard for the facts to be presented is that kind of civic irresponsibility that leads to fit birds going to prison and munters walking free.

thekingsnotdead wrote:

MrJonno wrote:

thekingsnotdead wrote:I'm on jury duty in three weeks time. Don't know what the case is, but I feel like voting guilty

This is the kind of approach that fks up our legal system. Making snap decisions without any regard for the facts to be presented is that kind of civic irresponsibility that leads to fit birds going to prison and munters walking free.

If it's a hot bird she is more than welcome to persuade me to find her innocent

Nolanator wrote:I was called for Jury duty a couple of years ago in Bray Circuit Criminal Court. There were about 5 cases in that sitting but I wasn't called to serve. Still wasted 3 days though by having ot be there in the mornings.

Every single case was an assault case and they all seemed to be from Arklow. The defendants in each case looked like right scummers. I'd be an awful juror on one of those cases.

anonymous_joe wrote:

Nolanator wrote:I was called for Jury duty a couple of years ago in Bray Circuit Criminal Court. There were about 5 cases in that sitting but I wasn't called to serve. Still wasted 3 days though by having ot be there in the mornings.

Every single case was an assault case and they all seemed to be from Arklow. The defendants in each case looked like right scummers. I'd be an awful juror on one of those cases.

Shame you didn't get on, an assault case where they contest it is going to have a cracking story.

Nolanator wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:

Nolanator wrote:I was called for Jury duty a couple of years ago in Bray Circuit Criminal Court. There were about 5 cases in that sitting but I wasn't called to serve. Still wasted 3 days though by having ot be there in the mornings.

Every single case was an assault case and they all seemed to be from Arklow. The defendants in each case looked like right scummers. I'd be an awful juror on one of those cases.

Shame you didn't get on, an assault case where they contest it is going to have a cracking story.

I think only a couple actually went to trial. The others all pleaded guilty. We were told to come back for the last morning as there was one more case to be arranged but on the morning in question the fucker changed his plea to guilty, presumably on the advice of his legal council. If the bastard had done it at the previous sitting we wouldn't have been called back for the third day.

I know that I'm being horribly prejudiced and judgemental, but a couple of the guys looked rough as fudge. Just their demeanour and general appearance. Again, I'd be a terrible juror in such a trial, even with best intentions of having an open mind.

anonymous_joe wrote:Duff, the basic problem is this - and Shatter even alludes to it - we're dealing with a 19th century system that actually works quite well. (After all, the Dáil is little different to the British system, and that's centuries old, old doesn't mean useless.)

At a basic level, judges deal with cases. The mechanics of that are fairly simple, barristers make legal submissions in a case, judges then decide on that. The problem is fairly simple - how? Well, they basically write essays. A proper High Court judgement on a point of law would probably rival a dissertation in terms of length and detail. There'll probably be detailed analysis of Irish law, English law, maybe other parts of the common law world. It takes enormous amounts of time, energy and expertise.

The problem is, judges don't have any time set aside for this. They do it in their own time, because that's how the system operates. For the record, that's why court hours are always so short - barristers and judges needed the rest of the time to get ready for said court appearances. In terms of time, if the courts were open for the summer, the HC judges wouldn't be able to sit because they wouldn't have their judgements done. Alternatively, they could sit and not give judgements, leading to the collapse of our legal system.

If you hired more registrars and built more courts (which they won't do) then you could probably have the courts run without a break, but you'd then need to set aside time for the judges to actually write their judgements.

And Camroc - who gives a fudge where they work? One of the English Supreme Court judges (who's Scottish, the ould Law Lords were a complicated bunch, I don't really know where the British system starts and the English/Wales one begins at this stage) does all of his judgements in his gaff in the Highlands rather than London. If you could work in Terenure or Antibes, where would you go? Different strokes and all that. Anyway, most of them are floating about Dublin on call about half the summer anyway, because there always have to be High Court judges on duty, like doctors.

kerry whale wrote:So just because a ancient antiquated system is in place it shouldn't be reformed or improved to increase value for the taxpayer? Sacred cows much?

Why not incorporate the time necessary for judges to write judgements into the normal year?

Judge A is off for a couple of days this week, Judge Y won't be sitting for a couple of days a fortnight later etc. etc.
I'm sure the logistics could be worked out.

Schedule the time they need so that not every judge is off "writing essays" at the same time in August, and so that the system can operate as close to year round as possible.

No doubt there's a model of best international practice out there somewhere to follow.

anonymous_joe wrote:Duff, the basic problem is this - and Shatter even alludes to it - we're dealing with a 19th century system that actually works quite well. (After all, the Dáil is little different to the British system, and that's centuries old, old doesn't mean useless.)

At a basic level, judges deal with cases. The mechanics of that are fairly simple, barristers make legal submissions in a case, judges then decide on that. The problem is fairly simple - how? Well, they basically write essays. A proper High Court judgement on a point of law would probably rival a dissertation in terms of length and detail. There'll probably be detailed analysis of Irish law, English law, maybe other parts of the common law world. It takes enormous amounts of time, energy and expertise.

The problem is, judges don't have any time set aside for this. They do it in their own time, because that's how the system operates. For the record, that's why court hours are always so short - barristers and judges needed the rest of the time to get ready for said court appearances. In terms of time, if the courts were open for the summer, the HC judges wouldn't be able to sit because they wouldn't have their judgements done. Alternatively, they could sit and not give judgements, leading to the collapse of our legal system.

If you hired more registrars and built more courts (which they won't do) then you could probably have the courts run without a break, but you'd then need to set aside time for the judges to actually write their judgements.

And Camroc - who gives a fudge where they work? One of the English Supreme Court judges (who's Scottish, the ould Law Lords were a complicated bunch, I don't really know where the British system starts and the English/Wales one begins at this stage) does all of his judgements in his gaff in the Highlands rather than London. If you could work in Terenure or Antibes, where would you go? Different strokes and all that. Anyway, most of them are floating about Dublin on call about half the summer anyway, because there always have to be High Court judges on duty, like doctors.

anonymous_joe wrote:Duff, the basic problem is this - and Shatter even alludes to it - we're dealing with a 19th century system that actually works quite well. (After all, the Dáil is little different to the British system, and that's centuries old, old doesn't mean useless.)