Law Reform Commission disbanding?

Thirdfox

Any thoughts on the recommendation by An Bord Snip Nua to disband the LRC?

I heard on Newstalk that it would save around 1 million euro, are we getting value for money from the LRC that would justify its continuation?

TJM

Two questions here really:

1. Do we get value for money from the LRC - i.e. do we get reasoned and well thought out proposals for law reform which justify the relatively modest sums put in?
2. Do we get value for money from the Government response to LRC Reports - i.e. does the Government introduce appropriate legislation to implement the reforms recommended or do reports gather dust on the shelves?

Thirdfox

Well I suspect I know the answer to number two... but what about number one? Are the LRC reports insightful/useful in discovering what areas of law we need to update/improve?

For example - did anyone notice the statutory rape laws in Ireland were in a precarious position before the CC case? Or something of that sort?

maidhc

I really don't see the point of the LRC.

They produce some fine reports, but I don't see the point if they are largely ignored.

Tom Young

maidhc wrote: »

I really don't see the point of the LRC.

They produce some fine reports, but I don't see the point if they are largely ignored.

Is this not a contradiction in terms?

Sorry, but as it's written it seems to be.

Tom

maidhc

Tom Young wrote: »

Is this not a contradiction in terms?

Sorry, but as it's written it seems to be.

Tom

I thought the point is obvious. They do good work, but if it is ignored, why bother.

E.g. I could dig a fine hole in a field, but if it is just filled in by a JCB i wasted my time.

I think the criticism could also be levelled that the LRC is top heavy with academics and its reports are a little too concerned with theory and that is why they get ignored.

servicecharge

The work they do should be left to academics. It is a fine body, but could easily be merged with a university law department.

It could then carry out it's work using PHD and masters students instead of paying researchers (its major cost at the moment I suspect). In this form you could probably cut it's costs by about 75% while retaining much of its benefits.

Jo King

it is ridiculous to disband the law reform commission at this time. Now that there are so many unemployed laawyers, now is the opportunity to reform and tidy up legislation. Massive costs are imposed on business and much hardship is imposed on individuals because it is so difficult to find what the law is. Take Road Traffic for example. Principal ACt 1961. Countless amendment acts since. More parliamentary draughtsmen need to be recruited and trained with the law reform commission increasing its productivity.

maidhc

Jo King wrote: »

it is ridiculous to disband the law reform commission at this time. Now that there are so many unemployed laawyers, now is the opportunity to reform and tidy up legislation. Massive costs are imposed on business and much hardship is imposed on individuals because it is so difficult to find what the law is. Take Road Traffic for example. Principal ACt 1961. Countless amendment acts since. More parliamentary draughtsmen need to be recruited and trained with the law reform commission increasing its productivity.

No No No.

Statute law just needs to be published in XML format and we need proper a proper "point in time" legislative database. Maybe even codify the law.

It will be a cold day in hell before the LRC will do that. They are most comfortable discussing the implications of the fee tail or something equally pointless.

Parliamentary draughtsmen will solve nothing.

Jimmy Jax

maidhc wrote: »

No No No.

Statute law just needs to be published in XML format and we need proper a proper "point in time" legislative database. Maybe even codify the law.

It will be a cold day in hell before the LRC will do that. They are most comfortable discussing the implications of the fee tail or something equally pointless.

Parliamentary draughtsmen will solve nothing.

...funny that because the LRC wrote something about the desirability of XML and point in time access recently:

"Public procurement
The Commission published an invitation to tender for an XML
authoring system in October 2007."

and here:

"The Commission has acquired (from the Office of the Attorney
General) a copy of the repository known as the electronic Irish Statute Book
repository (eISB). This is a repository of the Acts from 1922 to 2006 in XML"

and here:


"The Commission is conscious that a point-in-time capability would be
of significant value to practitioners. To start to build this capacity, the
Commission proposes retaining earlier versions of restated Acts for this
purpose, as restatements are superseded by later versions."


all available on their website at

http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/Statute%20Law%20Restatement%20Report%20July%202008.pdf

maidhc

Jimmy Jax wrote: »

"The Commission is conscious that a point-in-time capability would be
of significant value to practitioners. To start to build this capacity, the
Commission proposes retaining earlier versions of restated Acts for this
purpose, as restatements are superseded by later versions."

Interesting but the LRC doesn't propose how it plans on doing it.

CanLII have managed this in canada, but only because rather than silly textual and non textual amendments the government restate the code with each amendment.

The "XML" used by the AG for the electronic statue book is not adequate to allow for any form of electronic restatements.

I'm sure the AG was tendering for someone to look at electronic access, or was about 12 months ago. I assume that programme died a death though.