Woman jailed for blocking ESB access to her land

loremolis

The reports in the news today said that a 65 year old Offaly woman was jailed for contempt of Court.

It was reported that the Judge said that she would not be released until she purged her contempt.

Does that mean she stays in prison until she says "sorry"?

tfitzgerald

Yes she stays until she purges her contempt of court. I think she is right if she does not want something on her land she should not be forced

Finnbar01

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Yes she stays until she purges her contempt of court. I think she is right if she does not want something on her land she should not be forced

So could this go on literally for years?

Finnbar01

Finnbar01 wrote: »

So could this go on literally for years?

Shell to Sea Case in the High Court:

Held by the High Court (Finnegan P), in deciding against ordering further punishment against the contemnors, 1, that, in civil proceedings, committal for contempt was primarily coercive, its object being to ensure that court orders were complied with. However, in cases of serious misconduct, the High Court had jurisdiction to punish the contemnor in order to vindicate the authority of the court.

2. That, if the punishment in such cases was to take the form of imprisonment, that imprisonment should be for a definite term.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2006/H108.html

EDIT: The answer to your question is yes but it most certainly won't.

tfitzgerald

Their is a farmer from Limerick in jail for 7 weeks at the moment for contempt of court

loremolis

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Their is a farmer from Limerick in jail for 7 weeks at the moment for contempt of court

What did he do/not do?

coylemj

loremolis wrote: »

What did he do/not do?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/crime/farmer-sent-back-to-jail-in-bitter-land-dispute-166292.html

tfitzgerald

loremolis wrote: »

What did he do/not do?

sorry for not getting back to you loremolis and thank you coylemj for answering question:)

loremolis

tfitzgerald wrote: »

sorry for not getting back to you loremolis and thank you coylemj for answering question:)

No problem.

In a way the two situations are similar.

The farmer has gone to jail for (apparently) trespassing on someone else's land and the woman has gone to jail for trying to keep the ESB off her land.

Should they receive the same punishment?

Carawaystick

Deleted User wrote: »

Shell to Sea Case in the High Court:

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2006/H108.html

How much are we paying this Finegan fella to not use any commas. My head hurts.

Also the corrib gas field is in an arc less than a km wide exactly 65km off the coast?? Again this is worded badly.


More on the point, the judgement states that Willie Corduff et al are the owners of the lands, yet Shell wanted to enter them. I'd have thought if you're gonna compulsorily acquire something, you'ld own it first.

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

How much are we paying this Finegan fella to not use any commas. My head hurts.

It is normal for many legal documents to avoid punctuation other than full stops. That waym the sentances are written in such a way to avoid ambiguity.

Eats, shoots and leaves and all that.

eastwest

There are some suggestions to the effect that Eirgrid have no powers under the act, and therefore that the judge might have exceeded his powers. If so, this woman just needs the services of a good lawyer and she'll be out in five minutes.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

eastwest wrote: »

There are some suggestions to the effect that Eirgrid have no powers under the act, and therefore that the judge might have exceeded his powers. If so, this woman just needs the services of a good lawyer and she'll be out in five minutes.

Here's an interesting one...

Let's say the judge made the wrong call and the ESB had no right to be on her land (let's say this is in legislation that has been overlooked by everyone for some reason), and the judge held that they did have the right and the woman in question refused to let them on the land.
The woman is jailed for contempt of court, and 2 weeks later it is found in the court that the ESB had no right to be on her land.
Can the woman still be held for contempt of court as she has not purged her contempt as she still defied the court and has not apologised, even though the court was mistaken and has overturned the ruling?

eastwest

Apollo Some Wish wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

There are some suggestions to the effect that Eirgrid have no powers under the act, and therefore that the judge might have exceeded his powers. If so, this woman just needs the services of a good lawyer and she'll be out in five minutes.

Here's an interesting one...

Let's say the judge made the wrong call and the ESB had no right to be on her land (let's say this is in legislation that has been overlooked by everyone for some reason), and the judge held that they did have the right and the woman in question refused to let them on the land.
The woman is jailed for contempt of court, and 2 weeks later it is found in the court that the ESB had no right to be on her land.
Can the woman still be held for contempt of court as she has not purged her contempt as she still defied the court and has not apologised, even though the court was mistaken and has overturned the ruling?

Seems that the ESB has a right to be there, but Eirgrid doesn't. If both bodies were cited in the contempt ruling, it would appear that she was jailed on shaky grounds. I'd imagine that an appeal on those grounds would have her out in five minutes, and the contempt issue would be wiped. Might even have a case for wrongful imprisonment.
The fact that she took on a big company like the ESB without legal advice is probably the reason she's in jail.

dermot_sheehan

She's still in contempt even if she violated court orders that shouldn't have been made (and I see no reason why the orders couldn't have been made, both Eirgrid and the esb were named as plaintiff's if you look for the case on [url]http:///highcourtsearch.courts.ie[/url])

She should have appealed those orders rather then disobey them. She could of course appeal the order jailing her to the Supreme Court and try and convince that court she shouldn't have been jailed.

loremolis

eastwest wrote: »

Seems that the ESB has a right to be there, but Eirgrid doesn't. If both bodies were cited in the contempt ruling, it would appear that she was jailed on shaky grounds. I'd imagine that an appeal on those grounds would have her out in five minutes, and the contempt issue would be wiped. Might even have a case for wrongful imprisonment.

If Eirgrid doesn't have a right to be there then how do they have sufficient interest to make a planning application for an electricity line on land that they do not own?

The fact that she took on a big company like the ESB without legal advice is probably the reason she's in jail.

While I have every sympathy for the woman, it is strange that she chose not to engage some legal representation.

Is it one of those cases where the person is so convinced that they in the right that they fail to see the matter clearly.

Having said that I still think that the punishment should fit the crime and in this case a prison sentence of an indefinite length is very harsh for what she did.

loremolis

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

She's still in contempt even if she violated court orders that shouldn't have been made (and I see no reason why the orders couldn't have been made, both Eirgrid and the esb were named as plaintiff's if you look for the case on [URL]http:///highcourtsearch.courts.ie[/URL])

She should have appealed those orders rather then disobey them. She could of course appeal the order jailing her to the Supreme Court and try and convince that court she shouldn't have been jailed.

Would an appeal to the Supreme Court have taken years or weeks?

Victor

loremolis wrote: »

If Eirgrid doesn't have a right to be there then how do they have sufficient interest to make a planning application for an electricity line on land that they do not own?

Eirgrid is part of the ESB. Anyone can apply for planning permission on someone else's land if they have permission to.

Charlie-Bravo

As Victor says, a lot of local authorities have their planning application forms requesting that if the applicant is not the owner, that a letter of consent from the land owner is given. I am not familiar with this particular case - did they get planning for something on someone else's land? I could imagine it's a massive headache to attempt to traverse land in many different owenrships. C'est la vie - I suppose thats why these semi-state guys get paid so well to do their job. :rolleyes:

This thread is an interesting read.

loremolis

Victor wrote: »

Eirgrid is part of the ESB. Anyone can apply for planning permission on someone else's land if they have permission to.

Hate to correct you but Eirgrid is seperate and independent of the ESB.

Eirgrid was set up under the European Communities (Internal Market in Electricity) Regulations, 2000 to manage and develop the Irish Electricity Transmission Network. It has a seperate Chairman and Board of Directors.

They have responsibility for planning and developing the Transmission network, which includes making planning applications for electricity transmission lines.

In situations where the landowner co-operates, I can understand that Eirgrid could receive permission to make the planning application,

If the landowner does not agree to the placing of a line on their land, how does Eirgrid have sufficient interest to make the planning application on lands that they do not own or have any interest in?

Milk & Honey

loremolis wrote: »

If the landowner does not agree to the placing of a line on their land, how does Eirgrid have sufficient interest to make the planning application on lands that they do not own or have any interest in?

Sections 45 & 47 of the Electricity Supply Act 1927.

Charlie-Bravo

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Sections 45 & 47 of the Electricity Supply Act 1927.

Without having the time of reading through statues, is the above legislation applicable to ESB and Eirgrid, or just ESB?

loremolis

Milk & Honey wrote: »

loremolis wrote: »

If the landowner does not agree to the placing of a line on their land, how does Eirgrid have sufficient interest to make the planning application on lands that they do not own or have any interest in?

Sections 45 & 47 of the Electricity Supply Act 1927.

Those sections permit the ESB (or authorised undertaker) to acquire land or rights over land.

However that is a compulsory acquisition process for the ESB which must be approved by the CER.

How does Eirgrid make a planning application on land it does not own?

Even if the powers within those sections were transferred to Eirgrid (I will check that tomorrow) they dont use them in the making of a planning application on private property.

eastwest

Eirgrid has no powers under the Act to enter in lands without the consent of the landowner. ESB does, but they are constituted as two separate companies, something to do with competition in the energy market I think. Eirgrid is not, as is often assumed, a division of ESB -- it is a separate company and doesn't automatically assume the powers of its parent company.
This woman was badly advised, and the protest groups are asleep!

loremolis

eastwest wrote: »

Eirgrid has no powers under the Act to enter in lands without the consent of the landowner. ESB does, but they are constituted as two separate companies, something to do with competition in the energy market I think. Eirgrid is not, as is often assumed, a division of ESB -- it is a separate company and doesn't automatically assume the powers of its parent company.
This woman was badly advised, and the protest groups are asleep!

If they have no powers to enter onto lands( which I agree with BTW), then how can they make a planning application on those lands?

As far as I recall, if an applicant doesn't own the lands they must include a letter from the landowner confirming that they have no objection to the application being made on their lands.

What do Eirgrid do?

Victor

Rather than randomly asking "What gives the authority to ...", how about going and reading the relevant legislation?

eastwest wrote: »

parent company

I think you'll find those two words and the legislation are the important parts.

loremolis

Victor wrote: »

Rather than randomly asking "What gives the authority to ...", how about going and reading the relevant legislation?

I think you'll find those two words and the legislation are the important parts.

I've looked before and couldn't find anything. I thought someone here might know, hence the question.

I'll check again over the weekend and see what I can find.

There isn't a "parent company" relationship between the ESB and Eirgrid, so I can't see the relevance there.

Mayweather

The E.S.B came across our land last year, I need legal advice on the matter can any one recommend some one with experience with the e.s.b

loremolis

loremolis wrote: »

There isn't a "parent company" relationship between the ESB and Eirgrid, so I can't see the relevance there.

They are related Companies in all likelihood given their principal shareholder is the same person.

Mayweather

hey people a contractor for the ESB are trying to rip me off can any one please recommend some one to give me legal advice

Victor

Mayweather wrote: »

hey people a contractor for the ESB are trying to rip me off can any one please recommend some one to give me legal advice

Accountant? Solicitor?

micdug

eastwest wrote: »

Eirgrid has no powers under the Act to enter in lands without the consent of the landowner. ESB does, but they are constituted as two separate companies, something to do with competition in the energy market I think. Eirgrid is not, as is often assumed, a division of ESB -- it is a separate company and doesn't automatically assume the powers of its parent company.
This woman was badly advised, and the protest groups are asleep!

Eirgrid are not part of the ESB group. However, the regulated ESB division, ESB Networks owns the national grid, maintains it, and builds it. Eirgrid however are responsible for the operation of the grid and decide when and where it should be expanded.

I'm often amazed by the general laziness of some Boards discussions. Victor gave the hint that the Electricity Act 1927 gave "47.—(1) The Board if it thinks proper so to do may by special order empower any authorised undertaker to acquire compulsorily any land or to acquire or use compulsorily......
Key phrase being authorised undertaker. It's all there on www.irishstatutebook.ie and specifically the act has been updated here. The Commission for Energy Regulation can then delegate this authority to Eirgrid.

What really gets me is the thought by some guys & gals here that the ESB and Eirgrid are rank amateur outfits being run out of a tin shack in the midlands. The electricity network is a multibillion euro national asset of critical importance. The legislation to support the running of this network has been around for a long time (1927) and been constantly updated. For example - this little gem from 1999 gives what became Eirgrid the authority to cut down any vegetation that may interfere with power lines. They do have the authority and can do it. Both Eirgrid and ESB have floors of lawyers, planners, engineers, ecologists (yes they do!) etc and have been doing this for SEVENTY YEARS. Put it another way - even if a loophole or mistake was found tomorrow in the mountain of legislation dealing with electricity, it would be fixed the following day in the Dail because its that important. But thats unlikely because its being done every day.

As an aside, lets stop with this nonsense that burying the cables will solve the problem. ESB don't use tunneling machines - they cut and cover which would remove all the trees. Not only that, the trail where the cable was laid would have to remain sterile (trees growing on a power line!!) and accessible to heavy machinery for maintenance and repair. In effect - you bury a cable you build a road. It actually has more of an impact and this aside from the massive increase in initial costs, ongoing costs and risks associated with under grounding cables.

As for the route - the legislation requires Eirgrid to find the most economically advantageous route with regard to safety, efficiency etc etc. Unless you want to double your electricity bill to pay for all this under-grounding?

Lets face it, most of this is pure Nimbyism. And this is from someone who grew up right beside the main 220kv line to Arklow and heard the line crackling when it rained. You get used to it like everything else in life.

micdug

Mayweather wrote: »

hey people a contractor for the ESB are trying to rip me off can any one please recommend some one to give me legal advice

Rather then waste your time spending money on solicitors you'd be best off going to the Commision for Energy Regulation who have a dispute process for this in the first instance. Link is here. It won't cost you anything and it's an effective process. The only lawyers who are experts in electricity work for the ESB/Eirgrid and the legislation is fairly watertight - unless you are getting free advice this could be costly approach.

loremolis

micdug wrote: »

Eirgrid are not part of the ESB group. However, the regulated ESB division, ESB Networks owns the national grid, maintains it, and builds it. Eirgrid however are responsible for the operation of the grid and decide when and where it should be expanded.

I'm often amazed by the general laziness of some Boards discussions. Victor gave the hint that the Electricity Act 1927 gave "47.—(1) The Board if it thinks proper so to do may by special order empower any authorised undertaker to acquire compulsorily any land or to acquire or use compulsorily......
Key phrase being authorised undertaker. It's all there on www.irishstatutebook.ie and specifically the act has been updated here. The Commission for Energy Regulation can then delegate this authority to Eirgrid.

What really gets me is the thought by some guys & gals here that the ESB and Eirgrid are rank amateur outfits being run out of a tin shack in the midlands. The electricity network is a multibillion euro national asset of critical importance. The legislation to support the running of this network has been around for a long time (1927) and been constantly updated. For example - this little gem from 1999 gives what became Eirgrid the authority to cut down any vegetation that may interfere with power lines. They do have the authority and can do it. Both Eirgrid and ESB have floors of lawyers, planners, engineers, ecologists (yes they do!) etc and have been doing this for SEVENTY YEARS. Put it another way - even if a loophole or mistake was found tomorrow in the mountain of legislation dealing with electricity, it would be fixed the following day in the Dail because its that important. But thats unlikely because its being done every day.

As an aside, lets stop with this nonsense that burying the cables will solve the problem. ESB don't use tunneling machines - they cut and cover which would remove all the trees. Not only that, the trail where the cable was laid would have to remain sterile (trees growing on a power line!!) and accessible to heavy machinery for maintenance and repair. In effect - you bury a cable you build a road. It actually has more of an impact and this aside from the massive increase in initial costs, ongoing costs and risks associated with under grounding cables.

As for the route - the legislation requires Eirgrid to find the most economically advantageous route with regard to safety, efficiency etc etc. Unless you want to double your electricity bill to pay for all this under-grounding?

Lets face it, most of this is pure Nimbyism. And this is from someone who grew up right beside the main 220kv line to Arklow and heard the line crackling when it rained. You get used to it like everything else in life.

Most of what you're saying is correct (IMO).

I think you're mistaken when you quote Section 47.

It does give the ESB the power to create an authorised undertaker. And, as you say, the approval of the CER is required to ratify same.

However, Section 47 has little or nothing to do with the erection of electricity lines. As I am sure you are aware, Section 53 is the favoured and commonly used tool of the ESB when it comes to erecting electricity lines.

Section 47 (& 45) are very rarely used by the ESB (or Eirgrid) because they leave a visible paper trail. Why open your business to public scrutiny when you can hide behind a section 53 wayleave.

In relation to the cutting or lopping of trees. Personally I doubt that Section 98 as amended empowers the ESB to chainsaw their way through endless acres of forestry in order to erect their lines.

Their own policy (ESB/IFA compensation for loss of tree planting rights) suggests that they cannot do that under a wayleave. It states that they must acquire an easement to destroy forestry for one of their lines.

They have jailed a woman for denying them access to her land when their own policy says that they must acquire an easement to cut down a forest and in the absence of agreement the IFA will act as referee.

I wonder if the ESB even read their own policy.

loremolis

micdug wrote: »

Rather then waste your time spending money on solicitors you'd be best off going to the Commision for Energy Regulation who have a dispute process for this in the first instance. Link is here. It won't cost you anything and it's an effective process. The only lawyers who are experts in electricity work for the ESB/Eirgrid and the legislation is fairly watertight - unless you are getting free advice this could be costly approach.

Does the CER get involved in landowner/ ESB disputes? (If that is what you are referring to).

loremolis

Victor wrote: »

Rather than randomly asking "What gives the authority to ...", how about going and reading the relevant legislation?

I think you'll find those two words and the legislation are the important parts.

Victor,

I've checked the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations.

There is no exemption for Eirgrid or the ESB or an Authorised Undertaker which allows them to make a planning application on privately owned lands without the landowners permission.

I also had a look at some recent planning application forms for electricity lines by Eirgrid. For example:

http://www.oranmore110kvproject.ie/OranmoreContent/2. Completed Application Form & Fee/Completed Application Form.pdf

Section 7 of the form dealing with the applicants legal interest in the lands subject to the application states:

"ESB has statutory wayleave powers under the Electricity Supply Acts to construct electricity lines on private lands......"

Eirgrid is the applicant and they don't mention their right to make the application. A statutory body cannot exceed the authority of its enabling statute.

I'm lost here and back to the same question.

What gives Eirgrid the right to make planning applications on privately owned land without the landowners consent?

Mayweather

micdug wrote: »

Rather then waste your time spending money on solicitors you'd be best off going to the Commision for Energy Regulation who have a dispute process for this in the first instance. Link is here. It won't cost you anything and it's an effective process. The only lawyers who are experts in electricity work for the ESB/Eirgrid and the legislation is fairly watertight - unless you are getting free advice this could be costly approach.

Thank you micdug,

Can any one teel me is there a standard price on pylons an sets of poles !!!

eastwest

micdug wrote: »

.

As an aside, lets stop with this nonsense that burying the cables will solve the problem. ESB don't use tunneling machines - they cut and cover which would remove all the trees. Not only that, the trail where the cable was laid would have to remain sterile (trees growing on a power line!!) and accessible to heavy machinery for maintenance and repair. In effect - you bury a cable you build a road. It actually has more of an impact and this aside from the massive increase in initial costs, ongoing costs and risks associated with under grounding cables.

As for the route - the legislation requires Eirgrid to find the most economically advantageous route with regard to safety, efficiency etc etc. Unless you want to double your electricity bill to pay for all this under-grounding?

Lets face it, most of this is pure Nimbyism. And this is from someone who grew up right beside the main 220kv line to Arklow and heard the line crackling when it rained. You get used to it like everything else in life.

Just a couple of points.
1. Using an underground cable results in a much narrower "sterile corridor" than an overhead line (which requires a 100 m corridor).
2. The most economically advantageous route should typically be the shortest, allowing for terrain and engineering issues. In Sligo/Roscommon, the overhead option follows a 30 mile route whereas the direct route that could be utilised (along the N4) is just 29 miles. The reason that the o/h route is being followed in that case is down to the ESB not having the capability of doing it in cable. Locals know this, and have managed to prevent this line being built for almost two decades. It will never be completed, unless the ESB is prepared to jail half the population.

socrates111

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Yes she stays until she purges her contempt of court. I think she is right if she does not want something on her land she should not be forced

Quite so, and isn't this another example of 'might is right', and until an enlightened judicature is in place, it will continue to be so!

ImGettinPaper

I can see why she didn't appeal and just disobeyed. She's an elderly woman, she doesn't need this in her life at this stage. The cheek of ESB coming in and interfering with the woman's life. Boycot ESB. Spread the word!

seamus

Yeah! To hell with doing things legally! Let's all just do whatever the hell we want!

ImGettinPaper

VIVA A LA RESISTANZZZZE!!!!!!!!!!

socrates111

socrates111 wrote: »

Quite so, and isn't this another example of 'might is right', and until an enlightened judicature is in place, it will continue to be so!

This is so so stupid. I happened to see this woman come before the Courts and although I won't get into it too much here as I believe the elderly woman deserves some degree of privacy I can absolutely tell you that the judge did everything she could to help this poor woman.

On 3 separate occasions the judge re-iterated that the legislation left her with no discretion once the ESB had met their proofs and that she had no choice but to give the order. She strongly urged the woman to get legal advice to assist her in dealing with the ESB and ensure she was properly compensated but the woman refused.

The judge was more than enlightened but sometimes the judge has no discretion and simply must make the order required by law.

Gee Bag

ImGettinPaper wrote: »

Boycot ESB. Spread the word!

Eh, if you boycott the ESB your not going to be able to post on boards anymore unless you start using carrier pigeons or something similar

Justice for the individual

The ESB/EirGrid applied to the courts to have Ms. Treacy committed for contempt of court. She was sentenced by Judge Herbert to prison and would not be released until she purges her contempt until she complies with the court order. The judge may not have advised her on how she could legally stop the procedure. Did he? He should have advised her as she had no legal representation and she thought that right was on her side. As much as I hate to say it the judge was acting in accordance with the law as it now stands. The law has to be changed in specific cases like this in the interests of people with property rights.

However, seeing as the ESB/Eirgrid applied for the committal, I would think that they can also apply for her release. As the law stands at the moment the courts have no power to release a person until the contempt is purged. Basically, under the present laws, the courts hands are tied. The law is archaic.

We need a few decent lawyers to look at the law and see if Ms Treacy can be helped.

It's a pity that this is not a younger person (not saying that Ms. Treacy does not have the physical capabilities, she definitely has the resolve) as it appears from other posts that they (public utility companies) are targeting older individuals/communities by demographic methods, as they think they will not put up any resistance.

We appoint the government to look after our interests and they are not doing that. They, the government and all the semi-states and public utilities appear to support each other for "the common good" and to hell with the individual's rights. Silence will not solve the situation.

It is a pity that it has to be an innocent decent lady that bears the brunt of this battle. In the meantime, I would think that the prison authorities and gardai are embarrassed by what has happened. Most of them are decent too but they have to follow the instructions from the courts. In prison, she is treated exactly like an ordinary criminal, searched etc, prison cell locked, even though she has not a criminal conviction.

It is now developing into an impasse. She needs and must have the support of all decent people as her individual and ownership rights must be protected. The ESB created this situation and they should rectify it by re-applying for her release. Even then, another case will arise down the road. Sort it out!
Support is building for Ms. Treacy.

ImGettinPaper

Gee Bag wrote: »

Eh, if you boycott the ESB your not going to be able to post on boards anymore unless you start using carrier pigeons or something similar

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/esb-boycott-call-woman-jailed-171057395.html

I could live with what you said tho! Wouldn't mind us all back in the forests. Sure there'd be less problems then eh?

Judgement Day

I couldn't care less about the legal ins and outs of this case but yet again it points up the stupidity of the situation where you have people like this being put in jail while real criminals run around on early release because the jails are crowded.

Only yesterday, two company directors from Wexford http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0928/1224304856564.html were jailed for pension fund shenanigans. The two directors were fined a piffling amount of €4,000 each and jailed for five months - what's this going to cost the taxpayer, plus taking up premium jail space....the lunatics took over this asylum a long, long time ago. :rolleyes:

Jowls

Deleted User wrote: »

This is so so stupid. I happened to see this woman come before the Courts and although I won't get into it too much here as I believe the elderly woman deserves some degree of privacy I can absolutely tell you that the judge did everything she could to help this poor woman.

On 3 separate occasions the judge re-iterated that the legislation left her with no discretion once the ESB had met their proofs and that she had no choice but to give the order. She strongly urged the woman to get legal advice to assist her in dealing with the ESB and ensure she was properly compensated but the woman refused.

The judge was more than enlightened but sometimes the judge has no discretion and simply must make the order required by law.

And that's the issue here. None of us have the option of just choosing to disobey the law because we dont like it. Not the judge and not Ms. Treacy. The judges had absolutely no choice here despite it being obvious they tried everything to keep her out of jail.

The law allows for compulsory purchase/entry for projects like these. If you think that's wrong, you should be campaigning to change the law.

But then you should also accept that people will be able to frustrate national projects that cross their own lands - roads, pylons, whatever - at cost to the taxpayer. That's not to say that's not how it should be - but none of this stuff is black and white.

All that's happening here is the tabloids are jumping on this case because she's a woman in her 60's. And Im sorry but that is and should be irrelevant. Either you're allowed to disobey the law or you're not. If it was a 'hippy' or an 'eco-warrior' protesting against roads three years ago, they'd have a completely different line.

People are equal before the law but not before the tabloid tribunal of what's right and wrong. :rolleyes:

Justice for the individual

loremolis wrote: »

Would an appeal to the Supreme Court have taken years or weeks?

How expensive would that be for an individual? ESB/EirGrid would be prepared to fight it to the end because of their overwhelming financial resources (our money)

Manach

In this David v Golliath scene, I'd favour the landowner. However landowner is perhaps not the right term - for the State and ancillary organs such as the ESB can through the power of the State force the acquistation of any land through CPO, thus diminishing the concept of ownership. The public betterment they seek to impose usual benefit their own interests, as evidenced by the large ESB profits. Other countries such as Japan do not have nearly the same level of powers invested in CPO as Ireland, so this would cast doubt on a need for CPOs as a driver for development.

Gee Bag

ImGettinPaper wrote: »

I could live with what you said tho! Wouldn't mind us all back in the forests. Sure there'd be less problems then eh?

No problems, until the feckin' ESB came to cut down our trees!