why does ROI copy UK laws?

wolf99

Have seen lots of examples of this where seemingly Irish law folk seen a law in UK and said to themselves, that looks good, "yoink!" and then Ireland has the same law pretty soon after...

most recent example I came across was prohibition of changing of mobile handset IMEI numbers, the imprisonment length and fines are identical.

I know recently a lot of it is down to both countries enacting the same EU recommendations etc, but the reason I ask is cos I'd hate to see a national identity card here if David Blunket ever gets his way in UK...

Thirdfox

Well England did rule Ireland for a few hundred years... that's why we have the common law system and not the Celtic legal system. After we split off we decided the English legal system was pretty good and didn't really make many changes to it (I'm sure there are many laws passed in Westminister that still apply today). And since we share a common law heritage with the English their laws and judgments are seriously considered by the Gov and courts here.

However the recent smoking ban is one piece of legislation where Ireland has led the way and England appears to be following A good idea is a good idea no matter who suggests it.

DublinWriter

It's arguably down to the vast bulk of legislation and case law we 'inherited' from the Brits in 1922.

Considering all the vagaries of Land Law and Tort, there was no way the Free State (still at the time a Dominion of the British Empire) could practically go from a 'Year Zero' situation in terms of state legal statutes and structures.

Also remember that during this period of transition, lots of commercial and land contracts existed in the private sector. There were also lots of cases before the various high-courts of the land that weren't political in nature.

It was purely a case of necessity that a sense of continuation had to exist during those initial turbulent times.

Of course it would have been interesting if we scrapped the entire cannon of British Law as the earlier Celtic Breton law allowed a wife to divorce her husband in the event that he couldn't perform certain marital duties!

However, Breton law was of its time and couldn't have possibly sufficed in a post-Industrial era when various companies and debenture acts were necessary.

Victor

wolf99 wrote: »

Have seen lots of examples of this where seemingly Irish law folk seen a law in UK and said to themselves, that looks good, "yoink!" and then Ireland has the same law pretty soon after...

Maybe because those particular acts are seen as necessary, because there is a similar legal void and the foreign act looks like a good option to loce the void?

Why make work when it isn't necessary?

johnnyskeleton

AFAIK, Ireland abolished the rule that a husband cannot rape his wife before the UK, and there are no doubt other examples where Ireland had a law followed by the UK - the smoking ban as was pointed out.

Most countries have similar laws, so you could argue that in some instances Ireland and the UK both copied the USA, for example

johnnyskeleton

DublinWriter wrote: »

Of course it would have been interesting if we scrapped the entire cannon of British Law as the earlier Celtic Breton law allowed a wife to divorce her husband in the event that he couldn't perform certain marital duties!

Divorce in modern Ireland is pretty much like that - except the couple have to not perform those duties for 4 out of the last 5 years.

haz

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

there are no doubt other examples where Ireland had a law followed by the UK

The UK still has no laws on bullying in the workplace, whereas Ireland introduced S.I. No. 17/2002 — Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice Detailing Procedures For Addressing Bullying in The Workplace) (Declaration) Order 2002 and its revision in 2007. These followed a process started in 1999, so the UK has a decade of catching up to do.

ivanthehunter

If a judgment is given in the UK or in any other European country, can that judgment be used as a precedence here in Ireland?
At which point does the Irish legal system declare that a precedence in Bolivia is not applicable here in Eire

Thirdfox

Persuasive not binding precedence. Bolivia doesn't use common law as far as I know (the UK, US and commonwealth countries all have similar legal systems to ourselves). Of course it would be tough to argue the legality of some of Zimbabwe's legal precedence here in Ireland...

If a judgement is given in the ECJ then it is persuasive unless directly addressed to Ireland (in which case of course it is binding). The ECHR's decision is semi-binding in that Ireland has to acknowledge it's done wrong - but isn't legally obliged to change anything.

This is my understanding of foreign laws and its relation to Ireland.

Dandelion6

Thirdfox wrote: »

The ECHR's decision is semi-binding in that Ireland has to acknowledge it's done wrong - but isn't legally obliged to change anything.

I was under the impression that the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into Irish law a few years ago, making it legally binding?

maidhc

Thirdfox wrote: »

If a judgement is given in the ECJ then it is persuasive unless directly addressed to Ireland (in which case of course it is binding). The ECHR's decision is semi-binding in that Ireland has to acknowledge it's done wrong - but isn't legally obliged to change anything.

It is a bit more nuanced than that in fairness. Id say decisions of the ECJ essentially ARE binding.

For the ordinary person the ECHR's decisions are not worth the paper they are written on!

Thirdfox

Just not at the time the decision is given out to the other state... we'd have maybe a few years and even then may be able to argue margin of appreciation grounds...

L1011

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

AFAIK, Ireland abolished the rule that a husband cannot rape his wife before the UK, and there are no doubt other examples where Ireland had a law followed by the UK - the smoking ban as was pointed out.

Most countries have similar laws, so you could argue that in some instances Ireland and the UK both copied the USA, for example

Generally covers anything 'progressive' and has only been the case since the late 80s, but we had an equal age of consent for all well before the UK, still have comprehensive incitement to hatred laws when they don't, the smoking ban and the bag tax (Scotland is cloning this now) were also 'progressive', our equality laws in general have been better and further than the UKs earlier.

Thirdfox

Didn't we have a different age of consent 16 for male and 17 for female until the statutory rape provisions were ruled unconstitutional in the A case? It's now 17 for both right?

newbusiness

It's pathetic how we simply copy new British law.
There's no excuse for it, and frankly there's no point even having independence if that's all we do.

They ban Psilocybin mushrooms (magic mushrooms) - we ban them months later.

They introduce ASBO's, then we do.

They introduce law stating that British citizens are subject to British law even when abroad (ie do something that is legal in one country but illegal in Britain and you get prosecuted upon return). We introduce similar. Cathal O'Searcaigh take note!


Don't get me wrong, some of the law is perfectly good - but we don't seem to be able to draft anything unique ourselves and worse we implement foreign law with little debate or question.


I agree with the OP, if they get ID cards we're next.

L1011

Thirdfox wrote: »

Didn't we have a different age of consent 16 for male and 17 for female until the statutory rape provisions were ruled unconstitutional in the A case? It's now 17 for both right?

Equal across sexual orientation. In the UK it was once 16 for heterosexual and 21 for homosexual, later reduced to 18 then 16. Ours was equal for all acts by gender from 1993 - when homosexual intercourse was legalised.

Victor

MYOB wrote: »

still have comprehensive incitement to hatred laws when they don't

I disagree. While our equality laws are generally seen to be quite good (we can argue the exceptions another day), the incitement to hatred laws are seen as paper tigers. I think there has only been one prosecution and that failed (on appeal I think).

Thirdfox

MYOB wrote: »

Equal across sexual orientation. In the UK it was once 16 for heterosexual and 21 for homosexual, later reduced to 18 then 16. Ours was equal for all acts by gender from 1993 - when homosexual intercourse was legalised.

Interesting - could you point me to the relevant legislation then? For some reason I had thought the statutory rape provisions were in relation to 16 and 17 year olds before it was changed a few years ago...

Duffman

wolf99 wrote: »

most recent example I came across was prohibition of changing of mobile handset IMEI numbers, the imprisonment length and fines are identical.

This is almost certainly as a result of EC legislation. The fact that the implementing legislation is pretty much the same in the UK and Ireland is the whole point of the exercise.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Of course it would have been interesting if we scrapped the entire cannon of British Law as the earlier Celtic Breton law allowed a wife to divorce her husband in the event that he couldn't perform certain marital duties!

Brehon law also allowed husbands to divorce wives on the grounds of "general incompetence". The notion that Brehon law was somehow more progressive or civilised than the common law system we ended up going with has been shown to be false or at least seriously questionable.

maidhc wrote: »

It is a bit more nuanced than that in fairness. Id say decisions of the ECJ essentially ARE binding.

Yep. ECJ decisions are not "foreign" law, they're our law and to the extent that they conflict with decisions of Irish courts then those decisions must be set aside.

maidhc wrote: »

For the ordinary person the ECHR's decisions are not worth the paper they are written on!

Totally untrue. The Convention is widely seen as the most effective regional system for the protection of human rights in the world, because it is.

newbusiness wrote: »

I agree with the OP, if they get ID cards we're next.

I'd also be worried about ID cards but here it's not about simply copying the Brits. It's a bit more complicated than that. Because of the common travel area between the UK and Ireland it's pretty much a political necessity to ensure that matters like passports, id cards and border controls are harmonised. In this sphere they're clearly the stronger party

L1011

Thirdfox wrote: »

Interesting - could you point me to the relevant legislation then? For some reason I had thought the statutory rape provisions were in relation to 16 and 17 year olds before it was changed a few years ago...

I've no idea what that specifics were about - we could easily have had gender disparate ages of consent. Wasn't the big problem that there were contradictory laws?

http://www.acts.ie/zza20y1993.1.html#zza20y1993s4 legalised 'homosexual acts' as the old laws called them, with an AOC of 17, as was the AOC for males in heterosexual relationships at the time - this was the equality I referred to. There was no prohibition on female homosexual acts, just like the UK.

Victor wrote: »

I disagree. While our equality laws are generally seen to be quite good (we can argue the exceptions another day), the incitement to hatred laws are seen as paper tigers. I think there has only been one prosecution and that failed (on appeal I think).

Surely thats more a case of enforcement (prosecution) and possibly interpretation - or indeed the strength case put forward?

I'm not a lawyer, I don't pretend to be one, and my knowledge of the law isn't the best, so...

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

For the ordinary person the ECHR's decisions are not worth the paper they are written on!

For Lydia Foy to name the most recent, they're quite valuable.

johnnyskeleton

newbusiness wrote: »

It's pathetic how we simply copy new British law.
There's no excuse for it, and frankly there's no point even having independence if that's all we do.

There is a good reason for it - if the law is a good idea it should be imitated. This is how most laws developed.

newbusiness wrote: »

They ban Psilocybin mushrooms (magic mushrooms) - we ban them months later.

We didn't copy the UK legislation, the minister for justice decided to ban them after a publicised death related to them.

newbusiness wrote: »

They introduce ASBO's, then we do.

Ours are different and they are not commonly used.

newbusiness wrote: »

They introduce law stating that British citizens are subject to British law even when abroad (ie do something that is legal in one country but illegal in Britain and you get prosecuted upon return). We introduce similar. Cathal O'Searcaigh take note!

Extra territorial offences have existed in the UK and Ireland for centuries.

newbusiness wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, some of the law is perfectly good - but we don't seem to be able to draft anything unique ourselves and worse we implement foreign law with little debate or question.

Read the other posts in this thread for examples of Irish legal innovations.

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

For Lydia Foy to name the most recent, they're quite valuable.

No disrespect, but Lydia foy is not an "ordinary person", and I don't mean that in the sense of her gender, but in her perseverence! I know we have had a few interesting decisions on the ECHR Act in Domestic Courts, but a decision from the ECtHR isn't much use to the plaintiff if the State digs its heels in!

We will have ID cards here after 2009 in all but name. The tender for them has already closed.

Finally I don't see anything wrong with copying UK law if it does what we want. If it aint broke why fix it, not to mention the valuable hours already spent in the courtroom testing the legislation.

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

No disrespect, but Lydia foy is not an "ordinary person", and I don't mean that in the sense of her gender, but in her perseverence! I know we have had a few interesting decisions on the ECHR Act in Domestic Courts, but a decision from the ECtHR isn't much use to the plaintiff if the State digs its heels in!

Well ok it's not that relevant for non rights cases, but it is an effective tool for getting what you want, in the sense that in the first Foy case the relief was refused but in the second one (after the passing of the ECHR Act) she was successful.

newbusiness

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There is a good reason for it - if the law is a good idea it should be imitated. This is how most laws developed.

Granted. But our laws are carbon copies of British legislation, often with the hard to understand/implement bits shaved off. It's rare we'd copy the Dutch or the Danes.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

We didn't copy the UK legislation, the minister for justice decided to ban them after a publicised death related to them.

Wait, you're trying to tell me that magic mushrooms, legal since forever just happened to get banned within 6 months of UK law being published?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

[ABOS's]
Ours are different and they are not commonly used.

Never, is the word you're looking for (as of last month).
Fact is we don't know how to use them, we just copy catted the Brits.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Extra territorial offences have existed in the UK and Ireland for centuries.

For what? Treason?
Now it covers everything.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Read the other posts in this thread for examples of Irish legal innovations.

There have been a few, don't get me wrong. But we could do so much better. Just look at the number of bills drafted and debated in the UK vs. here in the last year. They're light years ahead of us, all we seem to do is copy them here and there.

maidhc

newbusiness wrote: »

Granted. But our laws are carbon copies of British legislation, often with the hard to understand/implement bits shaved off. It's rare we'd copy the Dutch or the Danes.

Why would we want to copy the dutch or danes? England has an almost identical legal system, a very similar culture, and the laws are written in english.

newbusiness wrote: »

Wait, you're trying to tell me that magic mushrooms, legal since forever just happened to get banned within 6 months of UK law being published?

The mushrooms were banned because of hysteria here nothing else.

AceofSpades001

newbusiness wrote: »

Never, is the word you're looking for (as of last month).
Fact is we don't know how to use them, we just copy catted the Brits.

What happened last month regarding the ASBOs?