Should this guy be made to pay

Just The One

...or should the state have to bear the brunt of the legal costs.

I, for one, certainly didn't want him to take the case to court on my behalf.



High Court hears costs arguments in Tara motorway case

13:17 Tuesday March 14th 2006

Environmentalist Vincent Salafia has been trying to persuade the High Court not to make an order for costs against him in his failed M3 judicial review action.

His lawyers say the costs should be awarded in his favour because he took the case against the proposed route of the motorway in the public interest.

Mr Justice Thomas Smyth, who dismissed Mr Salafia's challenge earlier this month, has adjourned his decision until tomorrow morning.

Lawyers for Mr Salafia today argued that the court could see the level of endeavour and risk taken on by their client, even though he had nothing to gain.

They said he came to court to protect the public interest by challenging the directions given by Environment Minister Dick Roche last summer regarding the carrying out of works on the site of the M3.

They also claimed that, although he lost his case on the basis of delay, his action was taken because of these directions and that he initiated judicial review proceedings against them shortly afterwards.

The state responded by refuting that Mr Salafia was in any way a public interest litigant.

They contended that he should not be indulged and given his costs as this would not be in the public interest.

unison.ie

Dermington

He started up the whole thing and now he must deal with the consequences.

I think he should pay the legal fee's.

county

probably better of in politics

irlrobins

He should pay. He is a professional protestor imho. He protested against the M50 as well.

His case had no merit according to the judge so he was basically wasting the court's time. He should never stop wasting even more of the public's money and pay his fees.

Gurgle

Just The One wrote:

...or should the state have to bear the brunt of the legal costs.

The state should bear the costs.

The state couldn't be bothered planning properly, then insist on sticking to their plans when the flaws are pointed out. I know its costing me money, hopefully its costing this incompetant government support.

Maybe next time they'll have a look at whats on the map under their spirograph set when they're planning where to put a road.

ferdi

if you fools cant see that what he was trying to do was in the nations interest, i pitty your children. as Gurgle said it is the states inability to plan a piss up in a brewry coupled with modern irish people having **** all respect for their heritage that means individuals like him have to take action.

the state should pay, its not like this bloke was on the make, he got off his arse and did what he thought was right unlike the majority of irish people who bitch on the internet about others.

Captain Trips

Yeah it's not like he was going to personally benefit from questioning the governments action on the proposed route.

Soon, will it be too expensive to question anything the government does?

Just The One

ferdi wrote:

if you fools cant see that what he was trying to do was in the nations interest, i pitty your children. as Gurgle said it is the states inability to plan a piss up in a brewry coupled with modern irish people having **** all respect for their heritage that means individuals like him have to take action.

the state should pay, its not like this bloke was on the make, he got off his arse and did what he thought was right unlike the majority of irish people who bitch on the internet about others.

I think that if you were the one stuck in traffic every morning and evening you would want something done about it.

Do you think it is better to be stuck in traffic in your car adding to the pollution and making the air quality worse for you, your children and future generations?

mise_me_fein_V2

Good response.

Whether you like it or not, most people care care more about the quality of life they have than they do about old skulls and stuff.

There's always a silent majority when it comes to road building and there's always twats like this guy that slow up the country.

Just coz some people care about stuff historical stuff doesn't mean they have to force it on everyone else.

I love my history and heritage, but in all honesty, everyone sees that an M3 is needed.

Just The One

mise_me_fein_V2 wrote:

Good response.

Whether you like it or not, most people care care more about the quality of life they have than they do about old skulls and stuff.

There's always a silent majority when it comes to road building and there's always twats like this guy that slow up the country.

Just coz some people care about stuff historical stuff doesn't mean they have to force it on everyone else.

I love my history and heritage, but in all honesty, everyone sees that an M3 is needed.

yes, yes and yes

ZiabR

Dermington wrote:

He started up the whole thing and now he must deal with the consequences.

I think he should pay the legal fee's.

Yeah i was going to say the same thing. He got himself into this mess and now it is up to him to pay up.

ferdi

not denying the m3 is needed but it could be done in a way with less negative impact on our countries national treasures.

this guy HAD to do this because the government and planning authorities are feckless goons. is it not possible to have the m3 a bit further from tara?

Just The One

ferdi wrote:

not denying the m3 is needed but it could be done in a way with less negative impact on our countries national treasures.

this guy HAD to do this because the government and planning authorities are feckless goons. is it not possible to have the m3 a bit further from tara?

Further away from Tara than the current road is?

At the moment the current road is closer to the Hill of Tara than the proposed M3 is!

ferdi

i'm aware of that, m3 is a more offensive road though

Gone West

the state should have to pay of course.
Its our national heritage, and he was acting in our interests.

tbh

I don't agree with him, but it's important that the legal process should be open to everyone, not just those that can afford it, if the case has merit. Who decided that the case should go ahead? (that's not a rhetorical question, btw, is there some sort of vetting process?). When the people become complacent, the government get shifty (er). So I think the state should pay for this case, but not necessarily every case like it.

Just The One

tbh wrote:

I don't agree with him, but it's important that the legal process should be open to everyone, not just those that can afford it, if the case has merit. Who decided that the case should go ahead? (that's not a rhetorical question, btw, is there some sort of vetting process?). When the people become complacent, the government get shifty (er). So I think the state should pay for this case, but not necessarily every case like it.

ok - I know that I am just picking holes in your argument but who decides which cases the Govt. should pay for?

tbh

ahh thats the fly in my ointment I thought about that as well, but I think it'd be answered by the answer to my question in the post - that is, who decides that the case can go ahead? I imagine there has to be some kind of legal merit to it to allow it to proceed, and if thats the case, then any case with merit against the state should be paid for by the state, I think. I mean, if there's a valid legal challenge, why should an individual pay for it? maybe it'd make sure they made things watertight before they published details anyway In this specific context, I'm only talking about cases brought against the state, not between individuals or corporations.

Just The One

FuzzyLogic wrote:

the state should have to pay of course.
Its our national heritage, and he was acting in our interests.

Ok, it is part of our heritage but, I think, the future is more important than our history. What we do today - or what we don't do - will have major impact on our futures.

As I mentioned previously, I think being stuck in traffic in your car adding to the pollution and making the air quality worse is not something that we should be encouraging.

We should be looking to the future and how we can make our lives better.

tbh

Just The One wrote:

Ok, it is part of our heritage but, I think, the future is more important than our history. What we do today - or what we don't do - will have major impact on our futures.

As I mentioned previously, I think being stuck in traffic in your car adding to the pollution and making the air quality worse is not something that we should be encouraging.

We should be looking to the future and how we can make our lives better.

ahh - but who decides what is better, and what isn't?

Just The One

tbh wrote:

ahh - but who decides what is better, and what isn't?

tongue in cheek


I am willing to take on the job of deciding

tbh

you could name your party after your username!

Gurgle

mise_me_fein_V2 wrote:

everyone sees that an M3 is needed.

Current planning process:
Draw road on map -> wait for protests -> crush protests -> Build

Can nobody see a better way of doing this?

Maybe start with a map on which the National Heritage people have drawn circles around all the interesting bits, and plan roads to avoid these circles?

They already plan their way around towns, mountains and lakes (with the formentioned spirograph set) and there really aren't that many millenia-old historical sites dotted around the place.

HelterSkelter

tbh wrote:

I don't agree with him, but it's important that the legal process should be open to everyone, not just those that can afford it,

If he was acting in the public interest as he says, they why don't the people who support him help to pay his costs? He certainly doesn't represent me and I don't want my tax going to pay for every objection any tom, dick or harry decide to make.

tbh

yes, but the point is, you may wish to object against something in the future, and you should probably have that right, without having to mortgage your house to do it. Look, I'm not saying that anyone who wants to sue the government over anything should be able to do it for free. I'm saying that if an individual has a legal argument against government policy, and if the justice system decides that, in law, the government has a case to answer, then, in order to protect democracy, the government should pay for it. These are very specific circumstances, I'm not advocating a freeloader free-for-all.

HelterSkelter

Just The One wrote:

ok - I know that I am just picking holes in your argument but who decides which cases the Govt. should pay for?

It could be done in the same way as when someone puts themself up for the General Election. They have to be nominated by a certain number of people from the constuitency in order to stand in the election. The people who nominate them have to go to the county council offices and sign the nomination form. If someone wants to register an objection and get the state to pay their costs if they lose they should have to have a certain number of people support the objection to prove that it really is in the public interest. This should put a stop to the NIMBYS who protest at anything that is to be built.

tbh

dont forget tho, you can't just object to something because you don't like it. You have to do it under a point of law - i.e. the development contravens the law of the land (I admit, I'm assuming this, I don't know for sure). In that case, if the government are implementing developments which are open to be challenged on a legal point, I think it's important that this is done, either they'll change the law, or plan more carefully.

Gurgle

tbh wrote:

either they'll change the law, or plan more carefully.

And which do we really expect to happen?

tbh

changing the law isn't such a bad thing, and it's not like they can change it to anything they want. The port tunnel is a good example of this, I believe they are talking about changing the law so that they don't need a compulsory purchase for the land below your house at a certain depth if they want to put infrastructure down there (pipes, metro etc). This will have to be done in an open manner, and if you don't like the proposal - lobby your TD! Democracy in action.

Sherlock

They don't need to change the law, they already have the power to tunnel under your house without paying anything. After all its not like you can do anything with it!
Personally I'm fed up with people taking court actions to stop anything getting built in this country. No matter what is proposed to built some crackpot is going to object. Has anyone ever actually seen the Carrickmines "castle" that ended up delaying the M50 and put the bill up by a fortune?, its just a pile of stones.

tbh

are you sure? I thought that , according to Irish law, you owned the land underneath your house to the center of the Earth. Isn't that what one of the reasons for the delay of the Metro was?

http://busrage.com/news19.html wrote:

Issues of Environmental Impact Studies, Rights of Appeal, Compulsory Purchase Orders, house ownership and 24-hour tunnelling will be addressed in a Dublin Metro Bill," said Brennan.

Everybody knows that any bill like this will result in massive court proceedings, and will probably require an amendment to the constitution. If it is successfully put on the statute book, and survives court challenges it could mean that future infrastructure projects will be faster and cheaper, something which can only be a good thing.

The_Minister

Gurgle wrote:

there really aren't that many millenia-old historical sites dotted around the place.

Actually we are ****ing covered with them. Look at the ringforts on an OS map - its like our country has acne

jimmycrackcorm

The guy should pay. The campaigners say that the route is covered by Archaeological sites. Sure the whole country is covered with them seeing as we have centuries of dead people to make them -= we'd never get to build anything. why should we have to pay between lack of progress and court cases. What value has carrickmines been - and does anyone miss the trees in the glen of the downes?

Sherlock

I hear from the news this morning that Victor has been landed with legal costs of 600k. No doubt he'll say he can't pay it and the taxpayer will have to cough up.

Sleepy

If the taxpayer has to cover that guy's solicitors bills I may sue somebody myself. It would be a simple case of him going bankrupt and his creditors (the lawyers not receiving full payment). That is a private matter and not one for the state to intervene in.

The solicitors and barristers that took the case should foot the bill for this imho. If they won't remove the barriers of entry from their industry and allow competition to keep the prices at a reasonable level, every case taken 'in the public's interest' should be compulsory to take and done pro-bono.

The real question is: should someone causing such delays and adding such expense to the development and the Chief State Solicitors Office be forced to re-imburse the exchequer if their case is dismissed?

Idbatterim

Yes he should pay the cost, he was the only one who decided to pursue his case through the courts! what a waste of tax payers money, maybe if he has to pay up there wont be so many auto objectors in the future! As has been said by others he was definetly not representing my view or that of the majority. 1. the road has to be built 2. it is twice as far away as the current n3 from the hill of tara 3. you cant make an omlette without breaking eggs 4. no matter what route was choosen there would be arguaments and objections, things have to be taken into context, should peoples lives be drastically scrwed up because it takes hours to get to work on substandard dangerous road? and for what? another burial mound or fulacht fia! no matter where you dig or build in this country you are going to uncover certain artifacts or sites! Its not as if they are burrowing through the hill itself! As far as im concered peoples health and sanity, and general quality of life are far more important than some site or artifcats (there are thousands of them all around they country) all of which can be excavated and catalogued! Why should the tax payer foot the bill for someone on their high horse who will autoobject to anything, let him pay!

skywalker_208

Of course he should be made pay!

does this guy live in Tara by any chance..... ? you would swear they were bulding it straight through the hill of Tara the way these clowns are going on.. they dont care about national heritage.. just dont want a big road near their houses..

and now alot of time and taxpayers money is wasted because these people have nothing better to do...

logonapr

Can't believe that so many think this crank shouldn't pay the costs. He is a self appointed protester and if he incurs costs they are his responsibility alone.

Fortunately we live in a democracy & we elect our representatives who in turn have the right to take decisions on our behalf. If anyone thinks they know better or that they can actually do better they have the option of going before the electorate.

In the meantime I'll shed no tears if this crank ends up losing his assets to pay the costs.

nlgbbbblth

JamesSmith wrote:

I dont think he should be made pay, though he seems more an attention seeker than anything.

Yes.
I get the impression that he is protesting because he thinks it looks cool and rebellious, mmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn.

Instead of genuinely opposing the development.

turbot

I think the state should be made to pay him.

He has spent his time dong this.... and I don't think he's just done it for kicks. I think he's done it because he sincerely believes in his cause, and it's probably a worthwhile one.

I don't think the Irish Government, in collusion with the Catholic church, represent any kind of tribal elders, spiritually or otherwise, such that they have the right to desecrate lands that are spiritually sacred to Ireland.

Just because there are some city kids, who have spent so much of their life in front of TV and Computers that they appreciate microwave pizza more than the bliss of the countryside, now in government, doesn't mean they are evolved enough to make decisions that are like wiping out entire species; by destroying environments that are sacred.

Unfortunately, we live in greedy Ireland, where a bunch of spiritually disconnected people are taking far too much initiative without nearly enough wisdom, such that they have taken it upon themselves to commercialise everything from peoples gardens (building houses where there is any spare space in the vicinity of Dublin city centres) to backhander based decisions of council planners across the country.

Whats sad is that these niave twats lack awareness and appreciation, and as a result, their decisions will rob the possibility of such experiences from future generations. I don't think these people are suited to deciding what happens to spiritual monuments they don't appreciate. If you, the person reading this, can't see aura's, then is it possible you are ignorant of things other people understand?

If a bunch of developers decided to bulldoze all the cathedrals to build starbucks, the government and the catholics would be up in arms. Yet, running roads through valleys central to pagan appreciation, literally paving the way for housing developments built with the most profit maximizing blends of environmentally disharmonious materials, is permitted.

It's the same kind of thinking that:
- Advocates putting up mobile phone masts next to schools for profit
- Advocates polution that can challenge the future of our air, for short term economic interest
- Accepts ridiculous incompetence