What is Fianna Gail's policy on Justice?

gent9662

anybody know what their plans are on justice?

Rubik.

FG's manifesto, section 6 - Crime, Justice and Drugs.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0215/finegaelmanifesto.pdf

Zubeneschamali

Rubik. wrote: »

FG's manifesto, section 6 - Crime, Justice and Drugs.

I'll be voting for them, but this is tired old nonsense.

johnnyskeleton

FG policy discussed here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056180990

Policy document here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0215/finegaelmanifesto.pdf

Basically it is a mix of the same stuff FF did and vague suggestions of remedying faults that don't exist.

1. Tackle white collar crime - but they don't say how. They will introduce a new anti-corruption law, but it is not clear how that will be any different to the ones we already have.

2. Anti-gang laws - already introduced by FF. Not, in my view, the correct way to tackle organised crime in any event.

3. End mobile phones in prison - already introduced by FF. A good idea, but already in being.

4. Stop criminals getting off on technicalities - bit of a misnomer on several levels. What are they going to do, tell jurys to stop acquitting? Tell judges not to apply the law? Or defile the rights of ordinary citizens in order to make people feel slightly safer. Those who give up their fundamental freedoms for the sake of short term security deserve neither freedom nor security as the saying goes. Discussion on how the word "technicality" usually refers to a fairly serious mistake or breach of rights - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056109499&highlight=technicality.

5. Thornton hall - they seem to say they will abandon it. We really need more prison spaces at present, although I accept that we don't have the money for it.

6. Sentencing reform - reduce short term sentences and prefer community based punishment. End imprisonment for non payment of fines and debts. All good ideas.

7. Merge Prison service with probation service - I've no opinion on this.

8. End automatic remission - sounds good no? Until of course you find out that there is no such thing as "automatic" remission anyway so this is a complete straw man argument.

9. Tagging sex offenders - we already have a tagging system which, as far as I know, has never been used becuase it is too expensive to operate.

10. DNA database - I'll leave this to the conspiracy theorists. I for one however don't particularly like the idea of the government having my DNA on file.

11. Ending waste of police time on administration - already partially implemented. But it is based on the misguided idea that you can replace highly paid policework with low paid clerical workers. Why not just pay the gardai less and have more of them?

12. Ending waste of police time in court - not sure how they can do this without getting rid of the whole messy "trial in accordance with law", "burden of proof" and "prosecution case founded on evidence" process. Currently there is already a system of garda sergeant/inspectors presenting in court, and state solicitors acting in cases, so I'm not sure what else they can do.

13. Judicial pay and expenses - they want a constitutional amendment to reduce judge's pay. Seems unnecessary to me as they haven't yet tried to pass legislation to that effect. Most judges have given up what was asked of them in any event.

14. Judicial council - already in the works.

15. Criminal legal aid - "FG will close the loopholes that allow wealthy criminals to avail of legal aid" - what "loopholes"? CAB pursue them for the legal aid costs - CAB already costs more than it recovers as far as I'm aware.

16. Family law - new constitutionally protected family courts - sounds good but do we need a constitutional amendment for this? Can we not just bring in the legislation?

17. Mediation - take steps to encourage and facilitate mediation - how exactly will they do that, other than telling people to mediate. Generally, people don't litigate unless they really want to fight their case.

18. Commercial disputes - FG will provide a civil commercial court at circuit court level - we already have a commercial court, why do we need a junior commercial court? Why should a commercial dispute get priority over the other cases being brought e.g. neighbour land dispute?

19. Settlements for serious injuries - provide for structured settlements - good idea but I think it is already being introduced informally.

20. Victims rights - more fluff with no substance.

21. Immigration and asylum - comprehensive reforms with statutory appeals system. Great idea actually, and is well needed. The only problem is that FF have been trying to get this through for 3 years and haven't been able, so I question how FG will do it more quickly given the more urgent economic issues.

22. Domestic Violence - again, fluffy talk of consoldiating and reform without any substance.

23. Modernising legal profession - establish independent regulation, improve competition and make costs more transparent. each of these things is currently in train, what will FG do differently?

24. Drugs, addiction etc - more stuff with little substance, dealing with addiction, education, rehabilitation etc, x-ray scanners at airports (surely they already have these) more patrols along the coastline and more customs officers. Great ideas, but these all cost money at a time when the public sector is facing cuts, not increases. If their policy on drugs is genuine, then their policy on making cuts to the PS is a lie, and vice versa.

So lots of talk, a few minor changes, but no real substance.

johnnyskeleton

Just to add, Labour's policy is more or less identical with its vague promises etc, all the same boxes ticked - victims rights, immigration, drug rehab, tougher on violent crime.

It's as though the parties commissioned a joint market research survey to see what people wanted from their criminal justice provided and acted accordingly.

To level up with the good ideas of FG, Labour have a few good ideas too:
1) prosecution submissions on sentencing;
2) pre-trial hearings;
3) witness protection programmes.

Reilly616

Johnnyskeleton, good analysis. I agree with most of what you've said.

As for your question, on point 16 ("do we need a constitutional amendment for this? Can we not just bring in the legislation?"), I can't see why we would need an amendment unless the proposal was to subvert the jurisdiction of the High Court (a possibility, I guess, but I can't see the point in that).

alejandro1977

Do you mean
Fianna Fail
or
Fine Gael?

johnnyskeleton

Reilly616 wrote: »

Johnnyskeleton, good analysis. I agree with most of what you've said.

As for your question, on point 16 ("do we need a constitutional amendment for this? Can we not just bring in the legislation?"), I can't see why we would need an amendment unless the proposal was to subvert the jurisdiction of the High Court (a possibility, I guess, but I can't see the point in that).

The constitution provides:

The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.

My view is that it doesn't reduce a judge's remuneration if a levy is imposed to pay for their pension. Judges' pensions were cut a few years ago and it didn't require a constitutional amendment, so I think it is probably worth a shot changing it by legislative means. Also, it is important to remember that most of the judges have taken up the voluntary schemes put to them.

The second point that can argued is that new judges can be put at the reduced levels of pay, and if judges have received pay increases over the last few years, I don't see any problem with the pay being reduced back to the point at which they took office.

I suppose one of the reasons for that constitutional protection is not for the benefit of judges (who, at the time of the passing of the constitution were probably more disliked than they are today) but rather to prevent government influence on judges.

I note also that while FG are proposing a new judicial council and the reduction of judge's pay, they are not proposing a system whereby judges are appointed independent of any political influence. That would be great, but FG probably owe too many favours from their years in opposition to put such a scheme into place.

Reilly616

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The constitution provides:

The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.

My view is that it doesn't reduce a judge's remuneration if a levy is imposed to pay for their pension. Judges' pensions were cut a few years ago and it didn't require a constitutional amendment, so I think it is probably worth a shot changing it by legislative means. Also, it is important to remember that most of the judges have taken up the voluntary schemes put to them.

The second point that can argued is that new judges can be put at the reduced levels of pay, and if judges have received pay increases over the last few years, I don't see any problem with the pay being reduced back to the point at which they took office.

I suppose one of the reasons for that constitutional protection is not for the benefit of judges (who, at the time of the passing of the constitution were probably more disliked than they are today) but rather to prevent government influence on judges.

I note also that while FG are proposing a new judicial council and the reduction of judge's pay, they are not proposing a system whereby judges are appointed independent of any political influence. That would be great, but FG probably owe too many favours from their years in opposition to put such a scheme into place.

Ah, that's your 13th point... I was on about your 16th; Family Courts. :P

You're right about Judges' remuneration though. My lecturer for the first term of Constitutional Law last year is currently working on the next edition of Kelly's The Irish Constitution (the State's leading text) with Mr Justice Hogan. He is of the opinion that a mandatory reduction in judges' remuneration in line with the sort of blanket reductions we've been seeing would not be unconstitutional. He feels this very strongly. This is, as you note, because the mischief which the constitutional provision seeks to avoid is a reduction in pay due to ill feeling from the Government. It is to ensure impartiality both by ensuring the Government cannot threaten a pay reduction in the case of a judgment it disagrees with, and also (due to their high level of pay in general) to reduce the liklihood of corruption, ie: it is hoped that a rich judge is more inclined to be above bribery than a poor one!

human 19

I saw a one-liner in 1 of their documents about mandatory minimum sentences but havent been able to find it since. went along the lines of expressing disappointment with the judicary's lack of willingness to accept same despite a supreme court ruling stating it was legally acceptable. Unfortunalely it wasnt a policy statement . The ridiculously lenient sentences doled out in this country is one of the regular blood-boilers which seem to come up on the news every few weeks.