Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Judges to cut short holidays for asylum hearings

  • 07-07-2010 09:30PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭


    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?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,494 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    And who are the judges answerable to again?

    Yeh, no-one.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gurramok wrote: »
    And who are the judges answerable to again?

    Yeh, no-one.
    To whom should they be answerable?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭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."


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Did you read my question? To whom should they be answerable?
    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?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gurramok wrote: »
    They are answerable to no-one. Agree?

    Hence my statement of not been answerable to anybody.
    Three times.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Three times.

    Oh come on. Who are they answerable to then?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭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'


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,494 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,494 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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)?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


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

    Not directly. Good jesus no.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,494 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,494 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,494 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement