Bringing the judiciary into disrepute

johngalway

I am just watching RTE news where Alan Shatter said criticism from "unnamed people" could bring the judiciary into disrepute.

My question is, why should they not be criticized?

I have seen some pretty strange (and I'm being kind describing it as such) decisions being made in courts.

What do you all think is the big danger of saying a judge has got it wrong if you think so? Why are they so above reproach?

They are human like the rest of us, they have their biases, opinions and aren't infallible.

Surely questioning people in authority should be good for a constitutional democracy, and not something to be afraid of.

Reloc8

Its a matter for each individual, as to in what terms they are willing to criticise or deprecate the finding (by way of opinion) of a neutral arbitrator appointed by the representatives of the citizens to conduct an inquiry. Some would take the view that a person leveling extreme criticism should either challenge the findings through the courts, or shut up.

There is a point at which criticism crosses a line and becomes more of an attack.

In case of the judiciary, as an organ of the state, it gets a little bit touchy if another organ of the state, or member thereof, makes an attack on it.

Again, anyone dissatisfied with the procedures or findings of a tribunal has their legal remedy if they chose to exercise it.

Sorry I'm not explaining that very well - hopefully the general point is comprehensible.

shaneybaby

johngalway wrote: »

I am just watching RTE news where Alan Shatter said criticism from "unnamed people" could bring the judiciary into disrepute.

My question is, why should they not be criticized?

I have seen some pretty strange (and I'm being kind describing it as such) decisions being made in courts.

What do you all think is the big danger of saying a judge has got it wrong if you think so? Why are they so above reproach?

They are human like the rest of us, they have their biases, opinions and aren't infallible.

Surely questioning people in authority should be good for a constitutional democracy, and not something to be afraid of.

I think Reloc8's second sentence is probably the one we're concerned with here. There is a difference to saying that the judge made the wrong decision (used to be a guy actually protesting outside the four courts for a very long time about the judge in a family law issue) and saying that judges as a whole are incompetent and protectionist.

Judges have their decisions overruled by judges in a higher court all the time which is why Appeals, Judical Reviews etc exist. The problem i think is that people think judges are there to promote justice whereas their main aim is to apply the law (obviously equity/discretion comes intoplay in some cases and that the law comes from the morals of the time). As oliver wendell holmes junior said "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

BrianD

I think a good rule of social media would be appropriate here - attack the post not the poster.

It would seem that the ire of O'Brien and Lowry is directed at Moriarity and not the report.

krd

Can Moriarity do O'Brien and Lowry for contempt?

I think they're just trying to create noise as a smoke screen. They've cost the country a fortune and will likely cost us more. My understanding, if the other bidders are successful in their legal action, it will the Irish taxpayer paying out - not money bags O'Brien.

Bosco boy

BrianD wrote: »

I think a good rule of social media would be appropriate here - attack the post not the poster.

It would seem that the ire of O'Brien and Lowry is directed at Moriarity and not the report.

Who do you think wrote the report? Of course when one person makes a damming report it's going to be personal, how can lowry and o Brien not critise and it not be personal. I think some of these tribunals set out to achieve a head for the public to justify the huge expense. Anderson evidence was ignored or discounted and all comentators present stated his evidence has totally discredited the tribunal and it's methods. The more I think of it maybe a dail committee is the way to go.