Woman challenging debtor prison laws...

Darragh29

I have to take my hat off to this woman. The idea of someone ending up in prison over a civil debt and a contractual matter to me is revolting in a civilised society.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/mother-takes-case-to-fight---our-debtor-prison-laws-1738304.html

Our man in Havana

The thing that will be argued by the state is that the imprisonment is not for non payment of the debt but as a result of contempt of court in that she did not comply with the instalment order.

If she had attended court when the order was applied for, the court would probably not granted the order in the first place. Many debtors ignore everything until they get to the committal stage, it is only then they take notice.

jackiebrown

Bond-007 wrote: »

The thing that will be argued by the state is that the imprisonment is not for non payment of the debt but as a result of contempt of court in that she did not comply with the instalment order.

If she had attended court when the order was applied for, the court would probably not granted the order in the first place. Many debtors ignore everything until they get to the committal stage, it is only then they take notice.

Thrown in jail for contempt of court, ludicrous.

McCrack

How else would you suggest courts deal with people who are refusing to comply with court orders? A whipping maybe?

Mena

I struggle to have any sympathy for anyone landing up in jail for this. It's totally self inflicted.

Had they attended court, put forward their case with an accurate overview of their current finances, the court would have taken this into account and told her to pay as much as was viable according to said finances.

Ignoring everything, burying your head in the sand, is never an option. At the end of the day the Judge had no choice but to grant an order as it was uncontested. That she could not pay said order is her own fault really.

Now, had she X available, and shown to the court, and the court forced her to pay X+1 and she defaulted and went to jail, that would be an entirely different kettly of fish, but I don't ever recall seeing that happen here.

partyguinness

The reporter should be ashamed of himself for misrepresenting the legal postion here.

It is not for failing to pay a debt but the contempt as stated above.

Secondly, some people are under the false impression that spending a few nights in jail will clear the debt and hence they leave the matter get that far.

Thirdly, who the hell loaned money to a semi literate alcoholic women on social welfare?

nuac

Perhaps the Credit Union should have made more enquiries before lending to this lady.

Although she is at fault in not responding when the instalment order was served on her, both the Credit Union and their solicitor should have made come contact with her before seeking her committal for breach of the order. Assuming she lived within the Credit Unions common bond area, it should have been possible for a community credit union and/or their solicitors to contact her personally.

partyguinness

nuac wrote: »

Perhaps the Credit Union should have made more enquiries before lending to this lady.

Although she is at fault in not responding when the instalment order was served on her, both the Credit Union and their solicitor should have made come contact with her before seeking her committal for breach of the order. Assuming she lived within the Credit Unions common bond area, it should have been possible for a community credit union and/or their solicitors to contact her personally.

I sometimes have to seek committal orders on behalf of various creditors including credit unions. Appropriate enquiries and contacts are made beforehand.

This process would have gone on for months if not years with the very least 5-6 seperate Court appearances so the Debtor would have had plenty of notice and time to reach some sort of arrangement.

Judged will commit if the Debtor does not make any effort to pay something back and will give them every opportunity even €20 per week if needs be.

faceman

I have no sympathy either. The jail term is for contempt of court. The installment order applied in court would take into account the woman's circumstances and her ability to pay. If after making the agreement her circumstances change, she is entitled to go back to court to amend the order.

Our man in Havana

Indeed Faceman. Well said.

The instalment order applied in court would take into account the woman's circumstances and her ability to pay.

That would not be the case in the vast majority of cases as most debtors never show up for those hearings and the judges have no choice but to grant large orders in default of an appearance.
It is only where the debtor makes an appearance that the court will take everything into account when deciding whether to grant the order and the amount of the order.

McCrack

The judgment is going to make interesting reading, personally I don't see this plaintiff "winning" on any general constitutional grounds but I guess a lot could turn on the individual facts which I'm not privy to.

Agree with partyguinness on the reporting, just another example of the media playing something up which in turn inflames public outcry when the reality is far different.
Just like the stories you sometimes read about poor Mary mother of 5 locked up in Mountjoy for 7 days for not paying her TV licence blah de blah.

Darragh29

Bond-007 wrote: »

Indeed Faceman. Well said.


That would not be the case in the vast majority of cases as most debtors never show up for those hearings and the judges have no choice but to grant large orders in default of an appearance.
It is only where the debtor makes an appearance that the court will take everything into account when deciding whether to grant the order and the amount of the order.

Was a summons served on her??? Was she aware that there were proceedings been taken against her?

Mena

Darragh29 wrote: »

Was a summons served on her??? Was she aware that there were proceedings been taken against her?

She more than likely ignored her mail so I'd say yes. However none of us, I would imagine, have the full facts here.

Darragh29

Mena wrote: »

She more than likely ignored her mail so I'd say yes. However none of us, I would imagine, have the full facts here.

I thought summons had to be personally served on you?

445279.ie

Darragh29 wrote: »

I thought summons had to be personally served on you?

No, they can be served by registered post and ordinary post.