Applause for judge's criticism of youth labour laws

Victor

O_o And this person is still judge, why?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1206/1228515635619.html

Applause for judge's criticism of youth labour laws

A DISTRICT Court judge was given a round of applause yesterday when he criticised the law which prevents young people working after 10pm.

At Edenderry District Court Judge John Neilan said: “Stand on street corners, scratch your backside, take drugs but whatever you do, don’t go working.

“Young people in gainful employment even an hour over time should not be penalised. It’s far, far better to have them working than floating around, standing on street corners, insulting everyone who passes by.”

At the end of a stinging critique of employment regulation there was a spontaneous round of applause from the packed courtroom, which the judge swiftly cut short.

At Edenderry District Court he dismissed 19 summonses against a man accused of employing young people to work until 11pm when under section 6 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act they must finish by 10pm.

The court heard that Benedict Sweeney of Sweeney’s Filling Station in Edenderry was unaware of the legislation and had handed over his employment records, confident that he was fully compliant.

The teenagers are all still employed by Mr Sweeney and in many instances are paid above the statutory rate.

“What does this say to young people?” asked the judge, adding that parents nowadays do not have the resources to buy everything their children need.

“I’m sick and tired of young people’s legislation – you’d think we’re driving them as slaves.”

He said it made no sense “to deprive them of a few extra euro if they want to work”.

He added that he was frustrated with the regulations and that the “bureaucracy and nonsense” was beyond his comprehension.

The judge said that as a child he had worked on the family farm late into the night when hay had to be saved.

“We didn’t have . . . health and safety regulations – you did it. Now, staff in Dunnes Stores and Tesco have to be told how to stack cornflakes. Next thing housewives and husbands will be taking courses in how to put away the boxes of cornflakes so they don’t fall on their heads.”

Judge Neilan, who said he was upset by the situation, commended Mr Sweeney and thanked him for employing young people.

He went on to criticise the bureaucracy that saw Cappoquin “bereaved” by the loss of the chicken industry.

He said not “a sinner or soul” in any Government department would take action despite the fact that Irish producers work to stringent standards while imported “lumps of meat” bought for a cent in Thailand and other countries with no regulation carry the “Guaranteed Irish” symbol.

“I’d take the regulations and burn the lot and then I’d burn the chicken house if that’s the way the Government and western Europe want to work.”

nuac

Was this another NERA prosecution?. An employer whose business is not big enough to afford the appropriate advisers or inhouse specialists is faced with a plethora of legislation. Some prosecutions seem to be petty.

On this one, I think Judge Neilans criticism was justified.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

O_o And this person is still judge, why?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1206/1228515635619.html

Because DJs have the same security of tenure as High Court Judges. While I can understand the need to make sure HC Judges cannot be threatened if they make a politically difficult decision, I'm not so sure that the same should be applied for the District Court.

While I think he does have a point about the legislation, it is there with the intention of protecting young people from being exploited or overworked. So by taking a stance which almost sounds like "why can't we put these kids to work instead of having them on the streets?" he comes across very badly.

He also made it a bail condition for someone this week that they couldn't wear a hoodie around town. He's not exactly publicity-shy.

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He's not exactly publicity-shy.

And never has been!

McCrack

I just get the impression that this Judge along with Paul Carney (whom I have the utmost respect for as a Judge) are examples of people coming to the end of their careers and willingly being controversial for the sake of it...nothing to do with personal conviction.

EC1000

This isn't anything new. He's what makes the Westmeath Examiner and Offaly Tribune worth reading...... always something to put a smile on your face! Personally, I agree with most things of what has to say.

Tom Young

Personally, I don't think Neilan is wrong. This is a case of reporting of a case or prosecution when I am fairly sure this Judge and others see a virtual 'production line' of disfunction coming through the doors of their courtrooms on a daily if not an hourly basis. Neilan has been known for his controversial views on things in the past.

In relation to Carney J. I also share the views expressed above. There should be more adoption of his courtroom policies.

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote: »

In relation to Carney J. I also share the views expressed above. There should be more adoption of his courtroom policies.

As in always wear a wig and never expect explanations of his decisions?

McCrack

It's not any members of the judicary's place to publically criticise the laws of the State. Judge Neilan is entrusted with judicial office, it's not his business to openly criticise legislation, his job is to interpret and apply the law to the cases before him. He knows this yet he continues to make inappropriate outbursts like this. It's disrespectful to the office he has been entrusted with.

It doesnt matter whether he has a point or not it's just not his place to say it. End of.

Tom Young

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As in always wear a wig and never expect explanations of his decisions?

Yes.

Thirdfox

Is this not a case of "legislating from the bench"? While his sentiments may be admirable, unless there's a constitutionality issue involved shouldn't he just apply the law as it stands?

johnnyskeleton

Thirdfox wrote: »

Is this not a case of "legislating from the bench"? While his sentiments may be admirable, unless there's a constitutionality issue involved shouldn't he just apply the law as it stands?

Justice tempered with mercy.

Thirdfox

"Mercy" - does that apply when the law gives no discretion for crimes? Or does the relevant legislation give leeway for judges to dismiss acts which are crimes within the black and white letters of the law (certainly there could be mitigating circumstances for a "worthy cause" but dismissal?)

If a judge handles a murder case and says "This man has suffered terrible tragedy as he watched as his child was raped and tortured by the deceased and acted in the way any loving parent would - Ireland would be better if societal scum such as the deceased were hunted down" would he be free to dismiss the murder charge? Not that employment laws and murder are the same - but is there a distinctive line drawn between when a judge can exercise this "mercy" value call? I would have thought that mercy can apply in both cases - the murder charge will go through but the accused gets a heavily reduced sentence for mitigating circumstances. Why does the same not apply here?

Not that I don't agree with the judge's sentiments - but isn't that the role of the legislature (and us - as the people who control the legislature) to amend or improve?