Intoxicating Liquour Act 2000

WobyTide

A bunch of cases in Claremorris District Court relating to people being found on premises after hours have been thrown out as the Act was never translated into Irish. Apparently any convictions under the act will now more than likely be quashed.

murrayp4

Do you have a newspaper link?

WobyTide

It's on the frontpage of the mayo advertiser but I don't have any other link.

seamus

http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/42126/pubs-can-flout-the-law-as-existing-after-hours-legislation-not-in-irish

The entire thing doesn't appear to be invalid, just certain parts which haven't been translated.

The judge is amazed that the translations haven't been done, but I'm more amazed that such a mundane and inconsequential requirement can be used to render charges invalid.

WobyTide

http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo

WobyTide

The judge is amazed that the translations haven't been done, but I'm more amazed that such a mundane and inconsequential requirement can be used to render charges invalid.

I don't think it's unreasonable. You're being charged with an offence in a country that has Irish listed as the first language. It isn't unreasonable to ask for a copy of the offence of which your being charged in the primary language of the state you're being charged in.

Having Irish as the first language is of course a different topic of discussion.

MagicSean

WobyTide wrote: »

I don't think it's unreasonable. You're being charged with an offence in a country that has Irish listed as the first language. It isn't unreasonable to ask for a copy of the offence of which your being charged in the primary language of the state you're being charged in.

Having Irish as the first language is of course a different topic of discussion.

It's only reasonable if the accused has done everything else in Irish. If the case wasn't being heard in Irish this should not have mattered.

WobyTide

It's only reasonable if the accused has done everything else in Irish. If the case wasn't being heard in Irish this should not have mattered.

With all due respect, that's nonsense. There's no onus on the defendant to do anything. The DPP is telling the man he commited an offence but they're unable to point to any offence he's commited. The law must say what he has done (in irish) and it doesn't.

This isn't a question of every bit of nonsense stuff being translated as gaeilge for the 200 people who speak it. This relates to what defines a law within Ireland.

MagicSean

WobyTide wrote: »

With all due respect, that's nonsense. There's no onus on the defendant to do anything. The DPP is telling the man he commited an offence but they're unable to point to any offence he's commited. The law must say what he has done (in irish) and it doesn't.

This isn't a question of every bit of nonsense stuff being translated as gaeilge for the 200 people who speak it. This relates to what defines a law within Ireland.

So even if a person can't speak Irish they should be allowed demand an Irish charge sheet. Now who's talking nonsense. Do you know how many court cases are held in Irish because I've never heard one. The only time I ever hear it used is when some idiot thinks he can avoid arrest by giving his name as Gaeilge.

It's an outdated and inaccurate portion of the constitution which only serves to add extra expense and awkwardness to everything.

xoxyx

It's a constitutional thing whereby Irish is an official language of our lovely, green and financially strapped little island, and if a piece of legislation hasn't been translated into our mother tongue, it may not be valid. Sure, t'isn't it grand!!

On a more serious note, the relevant provisions of the Constitution (from my reading anyway), seem to be:

Article 25.4

1° Every Bill shall become and be law as on and from the day on which it is signed by the President under this Constitution...

3° Every Bill shall be signed by the President in the text in which it was passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, and if a Bill is so passed or deemed to have been passed in both the official languages, the President shall sign the text of the Bill in each of those languages.

4° Where the President signs the text of a Bill in one only of the official languages, an official translation shall be issued in the other official language." [Emphasis added - obviously! ]

I was listening to Micheal Keane, counsel for a defendant publican, on the radio today. He was saying that, whilst the Act remains valid, any summons issued on foot of it has no legal grounding. I'm just wondering how the Act can remain valid, when it couldn't have been signed into being without an official translation.

ScouseMouse

Another example of stupidity. People find a loophole and get out of a legitimate charge.

We can argue that due to the flaw in non translation its not legitimate, but again money and garda time is wasted because of something silly. I know the law is the law, but its another example of people getting away with things they shouldn't.

I know i am going to get grief for saying this but its a pity the judge cannot use his common sense and do them. the courts here would work so much better.

xoxyx

superscouse wrote: »

Another example of stupidity. People find a loophole and get out of a legitimate charge.

We can argue that due to the flaw in non translation its not legitimate, but again money and garda time is wasted because of something silly. I know the law is the law, but its another example of people getting away with things they shouldn't.

I know i am going to get grief for saying this but its a pity the judge cannot use his common sense and do them. the courts here would work so much better.

Couldn't agree with you more. The fleas on a blind man's dog would tell you that it's ridiculous for a person accused of breaking the law to escape trial due to a technicality such as this!

source

Well I've done a little googling and found that we have an organisation which was brought into being to solve this problem. The Central Translation Unit was brought into being to clear a backlog of legal documents by translating them from English to Irish so this very type of incident could be avoided.

Set up in 2010 and to have completed the task in 2011. Yet here we have an Act from 2000 which still hasn't been translated. When this was announced back in 2009 It was said that it would cost between €3-€5m to translate, plus the cost of running the unit and staff pay. link

So where's our translations? and why are court cases falling?