Judges to cut short holidays for asylum hearings

caseyann

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/judges-to-cut-short-holidays-for-asylum-hearings-2248436.html

The Irish Independent has learned that the High Court President, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, has requested that 14 senior judges cut short their summer holidays to sit in September to hear the asylum appeals.
It is hoped the move will reduce a massive backlog of appeals by failed asylum seekers who have been housed in temporary accommodation, some for as long as five years, waiting for their cases to be heard.
Mr Justice Kearns hopes that the special sittings will result in up to 50 of the 550 cases in the courts system being heard over a four-week period.


Personally i think its not enough been done still,only 50 out of the cases and then will head off into another appeal if denied.
Where does it end?

My name is URL

They should be summoned back now and not allowed any bloody holiday until a fairly hefty percentage of cases are sorted out. The courts have a duty to perform and are failing miserably in doing so. And all the while the tax payer is being hit with a double whammy between paying for keeping people on asylum status and paying for the poor overworked judge's sabbaticals :rolleyes:

dermot_sheehan

I heard about this on Monday,

the judges hearing the cases will be volunteering to come in on the holidays.

It won't be the ordinary judges who deal with asylum cases.

There is no further appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court in an asylum case unless the High Court judge certifies the case involves an important point of law that its desirable the Supreme Court rule on. This is rare.

gurramok

And who are the judges answerable to again?

Yeh, no-one.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

And who are the judges answerable to again?

Yeh, no-one.

To whom should they be answerable?

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

To whom should they be answerable?

They are answerable to no-one, did you not read the post??

"High Court President, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, has requested that 14 senior judges cut short their summer holidays to sit in September to hear the asylum appeals."

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

They are answerable to no-one, did you not read the post??

Did you read my question? To whom should they be answerable?

Byron85

gurramok wrote: »

And who are the judges answerable to again?

Yeh, no-one.

And would you prefer that they answer to the Government?? Be glad that they are an independent organisation as such. The constant moaning on this place about Gardaí, Doctors, Judges etc is gone beyond tedious at this stage.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you read my question? To whom should they be answerable?

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

And would you prefer that they answer to the Government?? Be glad that they are an independent organisation as such. The constant moaning on this place about Gardaí, Doctors, Judges etc is gone beyond tedious at this stage.

Well enlighten us. Who are they answerable to?

Who can sack judges that cannot perform their duties properly?

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

Well enlighten us. Who are they answerable to?

Who can sack judges that cannot perform their duties properly?

Dude, you've dodged my question twice now. I'm not sure why I should be bothered answering yours.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Dude, you've dodged my question twice now. I'm not sure why I should be bothered answering yours.

They are answerable to no-one. Agree?

Hence my statement of not been answerable to anybody.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

They are answerable to no-one. Agree?

Hence my statement of not been answerable to anybody.

Three times.

Byron85

gurramok wrote: »

Well enlighten us. Who are they answerable to?

Who can sack judges that cannot perform their duties properly?

A judge may be removed from office for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, but only after resolutions calling for his or her removal have been passed by the Dail and the Senate.10 There is provision for a judicial enquiry into the conduct of condition of health of a judge of the District Court. 11 The Chief Justice is authorised to exercise a disciplinary function over judges of the District Court where he is of the opinion that the conduct of a judge of the District Court has brought the administration of justice into disrepute. The Chief Justice may interview the justice in private and inform him or her of his opinion.12

Now, would you care to answer oscarBravo's question please?

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Three times.

Oh come on. Who are they answerable to then?

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

Oh come on. Who are they answerable to then?

Four.

Perhaps you should re-read my question. I've clearly set it out twice for you.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Four.

Perhaps you should re-read my question. I've clearly set it out twice for you.

So they are answerable to what T.W.H Byron has stated which has hardly happened yes?

And exactly how many judges have been made accountable for their decisions?

Remind me, a certain Judge Curtin took an enormous task to ahem be 'de-judged'

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

So they are answerable to what T.W.H Byron has stated which has hardly happened yes?

And exactly how many judges have been made accountable for their decisions?

Remind me, a certain Judge Curtin took an enormous task to ahem be 'de-judged'

Five. Is there a particular reason you won't answer the question?

My name is URL

They should be accountable to the people.. this is a democracy. Saying that they should only be accountable to what their own conscience suggests “the law” demands is the same as saying they are accountable to no one.

They have a bestowed duty to uphold the law, and are failing miserably

oscarBravo

My name is URL wrote: »

They should be accountable to the people.. this is a democracy.

OK, someone answered the question.

Next question: how should they be accountable to the people?

My name is URL

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, someone answered the question.

Next question: how should they be accountable to the people?

Surely they should be answerable to who appoints them.. the same person who is democratically elected to represent us.

Eliot Rosewater

My name is URL wrote: »

Surely they should be answerable to who appoints them.. the same person who is democratically elected to represent us.

The separation of powers in this country is bad enough as it is without putting the judiciary under the control of the executive, which already controls both legislatures and, in a way, the presidency.

oscarBravo

My name is URL wrote: »

Surely they should be answerable to who appoints them.. the same person who is democratically elected to represent us.

Again, how? What mechanism do you feel should be in place to hold judges answerable to the President (other than the mechanism that's already in place)?

Nodin

My name is URL wrote: »

They should be accountable to the people.. this is a democracy.

Not directly. Good jesus no.

My name is URL

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again, how? What mechanism do you feel should be in place to hold judges answerable to the President (other than the mechanism that's already in place)?

Eh, the mechanism is already there as you say. It's not beyond reasonable to expect that mechanism to be utilized is it? Do you think it would be better to ignore the issue completely and hope that it rectifies itself?

If no problem with the system existed then neither would this thread.. why not exercise the control that the president has in making decisions to better it?

oscarBravo

My name is URL wrote: »

Eh, the mechanism is already there as you say. It's not beyond reasonable to expect that mechanism to be utilized is it? Do you think it would be better to ignore the issue completely and hope that it rectifies itself?

If no problem with the system existed then neither would this thread.. why not exercise the control that the president has in making decisions to better it?

The President has the power to dismiss judges under exceptional circumstances. Are you suggesting that she should threaten to dismiss them if they don't cut their holidays short?

My name is URL

oscarBravo wrote: »

The President has the power to dismiss judges under exceptional circumstances. Are you suggesting that she should threaten to dismiss them if they don't cut their holidays short?

If they continue to fail in their duties to uphold and apply the law, and fail do so in a timely fashion which makes the lives of people awaiting decisions on their asylum status easier then yes, frankly

oscarBravo

My name is URL wrote: »

If they continue to fail in their duties to uphold and apply the law, and fail do so in a timely fashion which makes the lives of people awaiting decisions on their asylum status easier then yes, frankly

So we'd not only have a country where the legislature is pointless because the government runs the Oireachtas like its personal fiefdom, we'd also have a country where the judiciary could be threatened with dismissal if they didn't bow to popular pressure on a single headline issue.

Why not just install a dictator-for-life and have done with it?

My name is URL

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we'd not only have a country where the legislature is pointless because the government runs the Oireachtas like its personal fiefdom, we'd also have a country where the judiciary could be threatened with dismissal if they didn't bow to popular pressure on a single headline issue.

Why not just install a dictator-for-life and have done with it?

It's not just one headline issue though, it's one line in a page of discrepancies within the judicial system. There are other failings too, weak and inconsistent sentencing for example.

There's no need to be sarcastic about it. Something needs to be done, people's lives are being negatively affected by the systems inability to correct itself

oscarBravo

My name is URL wrote: »

It's not just one headline issue though, it's one line in a page of discrepancies within the judicial system. There are other failings too, weak and inconsistent sentencing for example.

There's no need to be sarcastic about it. Something needs to be done, people's lives are being negatively affected by the systems inability to correct itself

The problem is that any attempt to correct it will almost inevitably lead to much bigger problems in the long run. A judiciary that is subject to the whims of the executive or legislature is a disastrous idea. Separation of powers is critical; all other problems need to be addressed within that context.

Laminations

While I dont want to see political interference in the courts, I would like to see more transparency with regard to judges work practices and rulings i.e. figures that would indicate inconsistency in judgments or unjustified leniency or inappropriate harshness. We should be allowed know the standards judges set for appropriate behaviour in our society. I want the names of the judges who granted bail to offenders who then went on to commit numerous other offences while out on bail - this is one example of easily quantifiable misjudgements. Bail is 'being given liberty until the next stage in the case'. It is inappropriate to grant bail to someone who poses a further threat to society and it is done far too often.

Liam Byrne

caseyann wrote: »

.....14 senior judges cut short their summer holidays to sit in September to hear the asylum appeals.

The words "summer" and "September" don't belong in the same sentence.

Summer ends on July 31st.
Irish weather and tradition means that August is included in the summer "season".
Tagging on September is a joke; if someone wants to have September off too it should be at their own expense.

oscarBravo

Laminations wrote: »

While I dont want to see political interference in the courts, I would like to see more transparency with regard to judges work practices and rulings i.e. figures that would indicate inconsistency in judgments or unjustified leniency or inappropriate harshness. We should be allowed know the standards judges set for appropriate behaviour in our society. I want the names of the judges who granted bail to offenders who then went on to commit numerous other offences while out on bail - this is one example of easily quantifiable misjudgements. Bail is 'being given liberty until the next stage in the case'. It is inappropriate to grant bail to someone who poses a further threat to society and it is done far too often.

So campaign for a change to the bail laws. Judges operate within the framework of the laws enacted by the Oireachtas.

nuac

Re Judges - look up separation of powers in any book on constitutional law.
I am not involved in refugee cases but in general the irish judicial system works well.

I query the "long vacation" which the Circuit, High and Supreme Courts and barristers enjoy - i.e. August and September. That goes back about 200 years when the Law Library closed for those months so barristers could go back to their estates to organise saving of the harvest, then return to town in October for some legal practice and politics.

I appreciate that there are some vacation sittings, and registrars will find judges for urgent injunctions if required. However I have met judges and counsel who think life should stop during their long vacation and that everything can wait until October. However the world keeps turning. People unused to the system cannot believe September is a non-event Four COurt wise.

That is in addition to the fortnights at Easter and Whit when the Superior COurts also close

Districts courts take August off only, ( with a weekly sitting in each district for urgent matters ) and September is a normal working month - quite busy with licensing courts.

I suggest in the times that are in it the LOng Vacation should be reduced to August.

AlekSmart

I suggest in the times that are in it the LOng Vacation should be reduced to August.

Hear Hear nuac,great to see insider posts showing evidence of reason.

My working life has been spent on shift-work.

In over 30 years I have never had a definite "Holiday Period" and am none the worse for it.

I see no reason why the Courts cannot have their holidays rotated each year in blocks with perhaps a set number of Judges and Courts Staff allocated their Fortnight ( :eek: ) in blocks.

If the systems is regulated and in place at an early stage each year then the Holiday makers can horse-trade with each other or make their case for added adays or whatever.

My essential point is that "The Courts System" can no longer,as the system of Governance does,shut down for much of the summer.

Time to get better value from Microsoft Office I suspect ?

nuac

Aleksmart

Thanks for your remarks. My experience is that lawyers and others working in the system are mainly reasonable people, it is just that the culture about the long vacation is slow to change.

Would not agree with the rotating holiday. In litigation there are at least two legal teams plus possibly expert witnesses etc. It is already hard enough to juggle dates to suit all. A rotating system would make this more difficult. Put it this way, if I ever do meet God, it will not be such an awe-inspiring event as is contacting some eminent senior counsel during the long vacation, or trying to arrange for some medical consultants to attend a court.

It is better to close the Courts down for all but urgent matters for a defined period i.e. August. Two months is no longer acceptable to e.g somebody in business who wishes to make progress with some matter in court