Oireachtas committee v's judical system

Bosco boy

The new government are looking at introducing legislation to reintroduce oireachtas sub committees to enquire into various matters. The high court previously ruled against such committees having such powers and their legality to do so. My question is should they be reintroduced, would they be fair and are they as politicans trying to give themselves a judical role when the seperation of powers are part of our constitution. Is it really a platform to boost politicans popularity or would it be fair and cost effective given the cost of tribunals since the previous judgement? Personally I feel it's politicans telling the legal system/profession they have failed and they can do it better!

Tom Young

Read decision in Maguire v Ardagh. There is a doctrine called the separation of powers which is unlikely to change. I don't foresee this happening for a number of reasons.

Bosco boy

I certainly hope that a profession that has failed miserably and left us in fire straits financially doesn't get to legislate to allow it's members to act as judge and jury over Irish citizens and reduce the courts to being secondary, the courts are what keeps these people in check!

FreudianSlippers

I agree with Tom Young. It would be a massive violation of the separation of powers and would never be upheld in Court.

That said, I wouldn't put it past the government types to attempt to do this. The majority of them being teachers doesn't help IMO - they have a very "I know better than you" mentality when it comes to most things, and they also consider themselves to be underpaid and undervalued (which is dangerous when they are put in positions of power and money).

I think the people should be watchful of things like this, because they will not overtly attempt to introduce these measures, but will attempt to sneak them in with other legislation.

Victor

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

they have a very "I know better than you" mentality

:pac:

Bosco boy

The people vote and that's democracy, I don't think it would be a great idea to ban or put qoutas on certain professions in the dail. I accept there may be individuals completely out of their depth but they can come from professions across the board. The problem is that some members of the government have continously critised the abbeylara dail committee judgement and with the recent slap on the wrist with callaly I reckon they will legislate around the judgement and give themselves the powers they want!

Reloc8

I say string 'em up. All of 'em.

Less harranguing more hanging.

BornToKill

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I agree with Tom Young. It would be a massive violation of the separation of powers and would never be upheld in Court. That said, I wouldn't put it past the government types to attempt to do this.

The proposal is to make changes to the Constitution so as to overcome this problem. The Programme for Government on page 17 contains five 'priority' issues to be put to the people by way of referendum. Does the second one take care of the Maguire -v- Ardagh problem? Five seems ambitious particularly when further changes to the constitution are additionally to be considered.

• Abolition of the Seanad
• A referendum to amend the Constitution to reverse the effects of the Abbeylara judgment to enable Oireachtas committees to carry out full investigations.
• A referendum to protect the right of citizens to communicate in confidence with public representatives.
• A referendum to amend the Constitution to allow the State to cut the salaries of judges in restricted circumstances as part of a general cut across the public sector.
• A referendum to amend the Constitution to ensure that children’s rights are strengthened

Tom Young

Ok:

Abolition of the Seanad

The 88 changes required to the text of constitution will prove to be a massive headache. Don't abolish, slash the pay and improve powers to remit to committee.

A referendum to amend the Constitution to reverse the effects of the Abbeylara judgment to enable Oireachtas committees to carry out full investigations.

Does not matter. Right of access to the Courts will not be interfered with.

A referendum to protect the right of citizens to communicate in confidence with public representatives.

See Moriarty Tribunal report

A referendum to amend the Constitution to allow the State to cut the salaries of judges in restricted circumstances as part of a general cut across the public sector.

Possible, but in my view should not be allowed.

A referendum to amend the Constitution to ensure that children’s rights are strengthened

Will happen and is overdue, like the codification of certain Constitutional rights.

Bosco boy

At a cost of €150 million and having taken 14 Years to get a final report you can see why such a proposal is being put forward by the government, the legal profession haven't exactly covered themselves in glory. We simply can't afford to have tribunals at such cost. It is in itself nearly a bigger scandal than what it set out to investigate. I'm all legislation to have judges pay cut, it's a disgrace that not all have volunteered cuts!

FreudianSlippers

In reality IMO tribunal barristers give regular barristers and the legal profession as a whole a bad name.

It would also seem that it is quite difficult to get back into "regular" barrister'n after being on a tribunal for all those years.

Ken.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In reality IMO tribunal barristers give regular barristers and the legal profession as a whole a bad name.

It would also seem that it is quite difficult to get back into "regular" barrister'n after being on a tribunal for all those years.

After all our money they got, why would they want to?

FreudianSlippers

lucyfur09 wrote: »

After all our money they got, why would they want to?

Well, yeah.

Bosco boy

Looks like they are going for it in a referendum and appointing themselves to look into various matters, is this the end of tribunals or the start of kangaroo courts, I'd prefer if they concentrated on the job they were elected to do.