Can the irish president overturn an prison sentence?.

7sr2z3fely84g5

I remember hearing a myth that irish president can overturn an sentence.particularly for murder,is this actually true?,the only case i came across of president overturning a sentence was an garda killer been sentenced to death in 1985,but the sentence was commuted to 40 years by the president on the advice of the attorney general.

dermot_sheehan

The president can pardon or commute punishments but only on the advice of the government.

coylemj

Bunreacht na hEireann Article 13.6 states as follows...

The right of pardon and the power to commute or remit punishment imposed by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction are hereby vested in the President, but such power of commutation or remission may also be conferred by law on other authorities.

Which might appear to give the President the power to commute prison sentences and fines imposed by the courts.

However Article 13.9 imposes a qualification on the exercise of this function....

The powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution shall be exercisable and performable by him only on the advice of the Government, save where it is provided by this Constitution that he shall act in his absolute discretion or after consultation with or in relation to the Council of State, or on the advice or nomination of, or on receipt of any other communication from, any other person or body.

To my knowledge, the only power given to the President which is stated to be exercised in his absolute discretion is the ability to refuse to dissolve Dail Eireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has failed to maintain a majority in the Dail. No President to date has ever exercised this discretion.

Milk & Honey

coylemj wrote: »

To my knowledge, the only power given to the President which is stated to be exercised in his absolute discretion is the ability to refuse to dissolve Dail Eireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has failed to maintain a majority in the Dail. No President to date has ever exercised this discretion.

The President can also exercise their power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court under article 26 at their own discretion. Almost invariably it will be a government bill, so it would be ludicrous if the power could only be exercised on the advice of the Government.

McCrack

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The President can also exercise their power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court under article 26 at their own discretion. Almost invariably it will be a government bill, so it would be ludicrous if the power could only be exercised on the advice of the Government.

Except a money (finance) Bill :eek:

coylemj

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The President can also exercise their power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court under article 26 at their own discretion. Almost invariably it will be a government bill, so it would be ludicrous if the power could only be exercised on the advice of the Government.

Article 13.9 distinguishes between actions carried out 'in his absolute discretion' from those carried out 'after consultation with or in relation to the Council of State' as did I.

McCrack

McCrack wrote: »

Except a money (finance) Bill :eek:

Why :eek:?

Milk & Honey

McCrack wrote: »

Except a money (finance) Bill :eek:

A money bill cant be referred at all so there is no question of an exercise of a power or discretion.

Milk & Honey

Milk & Honey wrote: »

A money bill cant be referred at all so there is no question of an exercise of a power or discretion.

No, you misunderstand me. Not "why can't she refer it?", I actually meant "why do you find that shocking?"

I am perfectly au fait with the Art. 26 procedure. I am not au fait with what shocks random people on the internet. Thanks for the explanation though, if I hadn't known the answer it would have been a perfect response. (no sarcasm, I genuinely mean that)

Milk & Honey

Who said I was shocked?

Milk & Honey

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Who said I was shocked?

I apologise, I mistakenly thought you had responded to my post and not McCrack's. I saw the :eek: and responded. My mistake.

Wolfe Tone

Kayroo, I must admit I find the snide, arrogant and condescending tone of many of your posts on this forum quite irksome. I've noticed it quite a bit, perhaps if it is unintentional you will appreciate the constructive criticism, if it is intentional, then...

Wolfe Tone

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Kayroo, I must admit I find the snide, arrogant and condescending tone of many of your posts on this forum quite irksome. I've noticed it quite a bit, perhaps if it is unintentional you will appreciate the constructive criticism, if it is intentional, then...

I don't see how anything in this thread could be classed as snide. Perhaps in some other threads (freemen bring out the worst in me).

I did specifically state to Milk & Honey that I was in no way being sarcastic or condescending and I'd have to be in possession of a world class ego to misread someones post and then be condescending about it.

Beyond all that I specifically apologized and admitted my own error in the thread. Hardly the act of someone fond of deliberately undermining others?

If my posts come across in a manner less than cordial then I appreciate you flagging it and I'll endeavor to change that in future. It is certainly not intentional on any level, except when discussing Freemen obviously.

McCrack

Deleted User wrote: »

Why :eek:?

haha, because it says it somewhere in that little blue book

McCrack

McCrack wrote: »

haha, because it says it somewhere in that little blue book

Ha, yes. I meant why were you shocked.