Reformation.

Inverse to the power of one!

I feel that the Irish legal system is for want of a better word fu-banjaxed.

From top to bottom, it is a slow, awkward system, weighed down in historical precedence, obscure language and dysfunctional in comparison to any modern professional practice. It has priced itself out of the reach of the majority of the citizenry and has become an arms race of the deepest pocket as opposed to a systematic process by which the state and societies laws are enforced in the name of Justice.

There is nothing just about it. How fair a system where the state must subsidize functionaries to provide services that would not otherwise be available and where the option of having a fair, open and competitive market is denied. How fair a system, where if high court injunction is sought, the defendant may have to capitulate due to the cost of what should be their fair right of defense(Costs awarded is not fair and incurs a disproportionate amount of risk on the defendants).

This is a system that shun's openness and closes ranks at every given opportunity in opposition to the democratic state it operates in. It utilizes obscure language as a means of denying oversight, and was singled out by the IMF/EU MOU as being required to be made more open yet nothing has happen. In line with this, it imbues disproportionate power upon its highest members such that they can avoid reform within the society by abusing the very system they are entrusted to maintain.

But I suspect the members of the Legal profession who browse boards are likely not guilty for any of the above, but rather are aware of it as an occupational nuisance.

My question to you, assuming you agree with these shortcomings:

What will it take to turn it around?
Would it be possible to have a comprehensive rewrite?
Are you frustrated with the Law reform commission?
How would you work to make it fairer and more equitable?

Procrastastudy

What will it take to turn it around?
Would it be possible to have a comprehensive rewrite?

There are some fundamental criticisms of the "Common Law" approach vs the "Civil Law" System that the majority of Europe, South America and Asia apply.

The biggest criticism of the Civil Law system though is the sheer GIGANTIC cost to the tax payer vs the Common law system's comparatively small cost. In fact Ireland has one of the lowest cost legal system in Europe (to the state). I suppose the simplest solution is stick 5% on income tax and fund the Common Law system we have publicly.

However, in my humble opinion, why should I have to pay for the legal system if I don't have need of it - beyond what I pay already of course.

Are you frustrated with the Law reform commission?

My limited understanding of the LRC may become apparent but they seem to make sensible suggestions that don't get implemented

How would you work to make it fairer and more equitable?

Increase Taxes and properly fund Legal Aid, FLAC and Citizens advice. Recommend people join a union. Put anyone who says XYZ tax is not valid because it's statutory on an Island with no services.

Make anyone convicted of a criminal offense PAY EVERY CENT of the cost of their conviction even if it meant selling their organs

Inverse to the power of one!

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

There are some fundamental criticisms of the "Common Law" approach vs the "Civil Law" System that the majority of Europe, South America and Asia apply.

The biggest criticism of the Civil Law system though is the sheer GIGANTIC cost to the tax payer vs the Common law system's comparatively small cost. In fact Ireland has one of the lowest cost legal system in Europe (to the state). I suppose the simplest solution is stick 5% on income tax and fund the Common Law system we have publicly.

However, in my humble opinion, why should I have to pay for the legal system if I don't have need of it - beyond what I pay already of course.

That's an interesting point. I wouldn't be keen to just chuck the cost on to the tax payer especially in this country as I would have severe reservations about the states ability to do it in a competent and proficient manner.

But you just highlighted a good point about the distribution of cost. It's a bit like health care, will cost you nothing if you never need it, but will cost you the earth should it be required especially as you will have no choice in such circumstances. Interestingly, outside of specific policies for types of liability, there is no general legal insurance one can avail of, either privately or publicly.

Also....on the topic of Liability :mad::mad::mad:

I lived in NZ for a bit, liability is extremely limited there, and as a result the costs of living, starting a business and medicine are far lower then Ireland.

Definitely a factor I would like to keep highlighted on this thread as I feel it is poisoning our society.

My limited understanding of the LRC may become apparent but they seem to make sensible suggestions that don't get implemented

That would be my perception, yet another ineffective state body who mean well but will take an eternity to get anything done.

Increase Taxes and properly fund Legal Aid, FLAC and Citizens advice. Recommend people join a union.

While I agree with boosting the bodies mentioned, boosting taxes has an effect of increasing the flow of money to groups whose self interest becomes a matter of maintaining the status quo and avoiding positive reform. Sadly the unions reflect this, their once positive ideals are now gone in the face of the established political force they now represent.

Make anyone convicted of a criminal offense PAY EVERY CENT of the cost of their conviction even if it meant selling their organs

China dude...China...

But we're trying to progress here, agree with holding criminals responsible, but this has to be balanced against not hindering the ability to reform. This would deny reformed individuals the means to try and become self sufficient members of society, and add to that the consideration of how balanced criminal convictions are, Skangers go through the revolving door, while the white collar fraudsters are rarely criminalized. If you don't get the balance right, you further re-enforce the pattern.

Manach

Instead of trying to increase State power and further pauperise people by raising taxes yet again, it would be better to encourage people to take an interest in legal matters, by say allowing citizens to comment and suggestion amendments to new laws. That and remove the reflexive need to sign up to every legal treaty such as the ECHR or Children's convention.

Procrastastudy

I lived in NZ for a bit, liability is extremely limited there, and as a result the costs of living, starting a business and medicine are far lower then Ireland.

I do not agree with limiting liability - if you do me damage I deserve fair and reasonable damages. Implementation of bodies like the PIAB and removal of juries in civil claims are far more effective ways of bringing down the cost of insurance. This should be balanced, however, with not going down the route of the United States of awarding bonkers levels of punitive damages which fly in the face of why we have damages.

The function of damages is not to punish the offender but to distribute the loss to those who are better able to afford it - insurance companies.

Medical costs? There isn't a NHS as such but medical costs are met for those in society that need it.

Instead of trying to increase State power and further pauperise people by raising taxes yet again, it would be better to encourage people to take an interest in legal matters, by say allowing citizens to comment and suggestion amendments to new laws. That and remove the reflexive need to sign up to every legal treaty such as the ECHR or Children's convention.

LOL the point is our current system does keep taxes lower! Comment or suggest new laws? Write to your TD! Not sign up to the ECHR??! Err... not even sure what to say here.

China dude...China...

But we're trying to progress here, agree with holding criminals responsible, but this has to be balanced against not hindering the ability to reform. This would deny reformed individuals the means to try and become self sufficient members of society, and add to that the consideration of how balanced criminal convictions are, Skangers go through the revolving door, while the white collar fraudsters are rarely criminalized. If you don't get the balance right, you further re-enforce the pattern.

I was actually joking but why not legalize all drugs and tax it. Got the yanks out of a bind in the 30's. Let everyone out who wasn't convicted of a violent drugs offense - that should save a few hundred million.

Oh oh thought of another one!

Privatise the Traffic Corp - let a private company enforce Road Traffic Acts - would cut down on road deaths and create a new revenue stream as well as lowering the cost of insurance.

Inverse to the power of one!

Manach wrote: »

Instead of trying to increase State power and further pauperise people by raising taxes yet again, it would be better to encourage people to take an interest in legal matters, by say allowing citizens to comment and suggestion amendments to new laws.

A more inclusive system would be nice. The Swiss get to challenge all laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

Manach wrote: »

That and remove the reflexive need to sign up to every legal treaty such as the ECHR or Children's convention.

THIS I think is a very serious issue with our Legal system. Our system is cumulative as opposed to revisionist, leading us to be weighed down with Laws that were passed two centuries ago with no relevance to today and which for the most part are open to abuse. A system that could review the practicality and functionality of existing laws and reform them without the requirement to have to readjust the entire system to do so would be beneficial.

Inverse to the power of one!

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I do not agree with limiting liability - if you do me damage I deserve fair and reasonable damages.

Agree in principle, worry extremely about the practice in that the effects go far beyond just compensation for the individual.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Implementation of bodies like the PIAB and removal of juries in civil claims are far more effective ways of bringing down the cost of insurance. This should be balanced, however, with not going down the route of the United States of awarding bonkers levels of punitive damages which fly in the face of why we have damages.

The function of damages is not to punish the offender but to distribute the loss to those who are better able to afford it - insurance companies.

I feel we already are in the lower levels of American standards, which is why the need for Liability reform exists. But I agree that instituting means to regulate the cost are a means to achieving a better system. NZ has the ACC, which acts as a general insurance for the individual, meaning you are compensated for grievance against you but in a more regulated fashion.

Procrastastudy

THIS I think is a very serious issue with our Legal system. Our system is cumulative as opposed to revisionist, leading us to be weighed down with Laws that were passed two centuries ago with no relevance to today and which for the most part are open to abuse. A system that could review the practicality and functionality of existing laws and reform them without the requirement to have to readjust the entire system to do so would be beneficial.

How is NOT signing up to the ECHR even related. You do also realise that the Irish Supreme Court reserves the right to break from stare decisis (precedent)?

What old laws that are open to abuse are you referring to? Most have them have been updated by statute (the re-write you suggest) or distinguished as no longer relevant in more modern cases.

Incidentally some of the laws protecting minors were passed in 1292 so way more than 200 years ago

johnnyskeleton

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

I feel that the Irish legal system is for want of a better word fu-banjaxed.

Why do you say that? Can you point to any actual specific problems? Or even a series of cases that in your view were wrong? Or are you just ranting?

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

From top to bottom, it is a slow, awkward system, weighed down in historical precedence, obscure language and dysfunctional in comparison to any modern professional practice.

Can you give specifics? Sure, there are certain areas where it is very slow, and others where it is ineffecient, but these could be redressed with more judges and better case management facilities.

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

It has priced itself out of the reach of the majority of the citizenry and has become an arms race of the deepest pocket as opposed to a systematic process by which the state and societies laws are enforced in the name of Justice.

This is simply not true. Can you point to specific examples of people who do not get access to justice? Apart from legal aid and pro bono systems, we also have a fairly good tradition whereby lawyers will often take on a case on a no foal no fee basis with minimal or no upfront cost to the litigant. Generally speaking, such services are usually only given to people who have a reasonable chance of success or some public interest / humanitarian aspect to it, but arguablly people who have minimal chances of success and no other special reason to get services for free should not be before the court anyway. If they are bringing a spurious case or putting up a spurious defence, they can either pay for lawyers or else represent themselves.

But again, where is your evidence that anyone is priced out of the market?

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

There is nothing just about it.

This is such a meaningless assertion. Where exactly is the justice lacking? How can you possibly know that there is nothing just about it? Have to looked at every single case and determined that in not one case was justice done? Surely there must be at least a few examples of people being convicted where they deserve it, or being acquitted where they don't? I could show you countless examples of where justice was done (in my opinion anyway) but it is really up to you to show us why you think there is no justice.

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

How fair a system where the state must subsidize functionaries to provide services that would not otherwise be available and where the option of having a fair, open and competitive market is denied. How fair a system, where if high court injunction is sought, the defendant may have to capitulate due to the cost of what should be their fair right of defense(Costs awarded is not fair and incurs a disproportionate amount of risk on the defendants).

Put simply, the court is a chance for them to put forward their defence. The costs award is actually very fair because if someone is bringing an unfair injunction against an impecunious defendant, as said above, he will probably get lawyers to defend him. Equally, it stops people putting up a non sense defence to an injunction in order to cost the other side more money and delay matters. So ultimately it works in favour of whoever is right in any given dispute.

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

This is a system that shun's openness and closes ranks at every given opportunity in opposition to the democratic state it operates in. It utilizes obscure language as a means of denying oversight, and was singled out by the IMF/EU MOU as being required to be made more open yet nothing has happen. In line with this, it imbues disproportionate power upon its highest members such that they can avoid reform within the society by abusing the very system they are entrusted to maintain.

Again, what language do you find obscure and how do you know it is used as a means of denying oversight? Every complex and technical profession has its own jargon, that is simply unavoidable.

You are also attributing far too much weight to the Memorandum of Understanding. The targeting of the professions was a very minor part thrown in as a sop to public sector workers to make them feel like they were not the only ones being targeted. The actual changes proposed are in reality very minor in terms of promoting competition over legal fees and are just a way of doing something for "doing something"'s sake.

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

But I suspect the members of the Legal profession who browse boards are likely not guilty for any of the above, but rather are aware of it as an occupational nuisance.

Yes yes, the usual line of there being these evil lawyers out there that everyone knows about, but never happens to meet and all the lawyers they do meet just happen to be miraculously not part of this group.

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

What will it take to turn it around?

1. State the problem (which you have yet to do, other than in very vague terms).
2. Analyise the cause of the problem.
3. Take steps to remedy it.
Simple.

But without knowing what exactly you find offensive, how can we being to change it?

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Would it be possible to have a comprehensive rewrite?

Why? Really, what is the point, other than to make you feel better? A comprehensive rewrite would most likely include all the laws we currently have such as the prohibition on murder etc. These laws have stood the test of time for a reason, they make sense. But if you want to change these laws which experience have told us are good because you feel in the most vague sense that there is something amiss then tell you local TD this. They will gladly accomodate you and promise all sorts of silly new laws.

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Are you frustrated with the Law reform commission?

No. Why would I be?

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

How would you work to make it fairer and more equitable?

There are lots of reforms that I can think of. The system is always changing and hopefully getting better. But until you say exactly what you find wrong with the present system, what is the point of providing such information?

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Also....on the topic of Liability :mad::mad::mad:

I lived in NZ for a bit, liability is extremely limited there, and as a result the costs of living, starting a business and medicine are far lower then Ireland.

Definitely a factor I would like to keep highlighted on this thread as I feel it is poisoning our society.

Right. So businesses can go off and do whatever they like with impunity in order to make more money for their shareholders. Yes, that's a good system that I would love to see here!

FreudianSlippers

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

From top to bottom, it is a slow,

It is slow - how do we fix that? The lists are packed and we can't really afford more judges.

awkward system

Can you explain what you mean by this?

weighed down in historical precedence

What's wrong with the way common law works? What's your alternative.

obscure language and dysfunctional in comparison to any modern professional practice.

You think law in the US is the way you see it on TV? Can you show an example of any "modern professional practice" of law that doesn't use legal language?

Would you accept it if I said that the problem with the medical profession is that they are too weighed down in historical precedence and obscure language? Or is your problem just that lawyers exist - we all have to get high levels of education to work in this field; I, personally, take some offence to the notion that we're not necessary.

It has priced itself out of the reach of the majority of the citizenry and has become an arms race of the deepest pocket as opposed to a systematic process by which the state and societies laws are enforced in the name of Justice.

There is some level of prices being similar. I think, however, that allowing barristers for form chambers and allowing them to work in-house would alleviate some of this problem.

There is nothing just about it. How fair a system where the state must subsidize functionaries to provide services that would not otherwise be available and where the option of having a fair, open and competitive market is denied.

What do you mean by this? Are you just referring to criminal law here?

How fair a system, where if high court injunction is sought, the defendant may have to capitulate due to the cost of what should be their fair right of defense(Costs awarded is not fair and incurs a disproportionate amount of risk on the defendants).

Can you explain this? I'm sure if you teased it out fully you'd realise it doesn't make sense. If the injunction is granted then surely it was deserved, right?
Or are you alleging that the courts are failing to provide and administer justice properly?

This is a system that shun's openness and closes ranks at every given opportunity in opposition to the democratic state it operates in. It utilizes obscure language as a means of denying oversight, and was singled out by the IMF/EU MOU as being required to be made more open yet nothing has happen. In line with this, it imbues disproportionate power upon its highest members such that they can avoid reform within the society by abusing the very system they are entrusted to maintain.

Explain?

What will it take to turn it around?

Real reform. Focusing on wigs & gowns and "archaic" language and the optical issues is not going to turn it around. The public perspective of what is wrong with the legal system is not actually what is really wrong. It's what the public will buy as the problem because it's easier than focusing on the real problem.

We need barrister and solicitors (they provide these roles in all western countries; although there is no named distinction in the US there are still "trial attorneys" and regular ones). They should be independently monitored both individually as groups and together as a legal profession. The problem with Minister Shatter's proposal is twofold: 1) he's too close to the issue; 2) he grants far too much ministerial power (it's far less objective and independent than he leads on).

Would it be possible to have a comprehensive rewrite?

No. But I think we could easily bring our system more in line with the far more functional system in the UK.

Are you frustrated with the Law reform commission?

Not really. I don't know what people expected from them really.

How would you work to make it fairer and more equitable?

I think people don't realise how hard it is for young lawyers. Effectively on the breadline for years. For solicitors as well as barristers. Personally, I obviously see the problem with barristers more, but there must be a way to ensure these young people earn some sort of a living wage without having to work 2 or 3 jobs. There are plenty of very good young barristers that are willing to do work and do it well for a fraction of what the more established people will pay; but the solicitors are not giving them work and I think the clients don't know or don't care about that. Then you have the issue of chasing up fees too.

Ashashi

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I do not agree with limiting liability - if you do me damage I deserve fair and reasonable damages. Implementation of bodies like the PIAB and removal of juries in civil claims are far more effective ways of bringing down the cost of insurance. This should be balanced, however, with not going down the route of the United States of awarding bonkers levels of punitive damages which fly in the face of why we have damages.

I must disagree with you here. Limiting liability must be needed in some instances. It is becoming ever more likely that limiting liability in company law may be common place. Auditors are the perfect example because they can be open to huge pools of liability and they may have had little to do with the damage caused. There have been reforms in England (ss. 534-6 of the Companies Acts) that allow an auditor and the company hiring their services to agree to cap the level of liability. I agree with it in this instance.

MagicSean

There are things that can be done in criminal trials to reduce cost and time. I'll always remember being at a murder trial and watching an expert in balistics describe how the item in his hand was in fact a real firearm. Surely something that could have been done via a certificate instead of a full testimony. He was followed by a tow truck driver who had to testify that the car he delivered to the scenes of crime unit was the same car he picked up at the scene of the murder. Chain of custody is important but unless the defence has some issue with a statement it should not take up the courts time.

johnnyskeleton

MagicSean wrote: »

There are things that can be done in criminal trials to reduce cost and time. I'll always remember being at a murder trial and watching an expert in balistics describe how the item in his hand was in fact a real firearm. Surely something that could have been done via a certificate instead of a full testimony. He was followed by a tow truck driver who had to testify that the car he delivered to the scenes of crime unit was the same car he picked up at the scene of the murder. Chain of custody is important but unless the defence has some issue with a statement it should not take up the courts time.

Maybe it could be done pretrial by a judge alone. A form of pre jury filtration of evidence hearing would be a good thing

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Maybe it could be done pretrial by a judge alone. A form of pre jury filtration of evidence hearing would be a good thing

Well the onus would really be on the defence to go through the book of evidence and indicate what they would like to exclude. If a judge made the decision to exclude something that the defence wanted to include then would it not be grounds for appeal?

johnnyskeleton

MagicSean wrote: »

Well the onus would really be on the defence to go through the book of evidence and indicate what they would like to exclude. If a judge made the decision to exclude something that the defence wanted to include then would it not be grounds for appeal?

Sorry by judge alone I mean no jury. I wasn't suggesting that the judge do it without the lawyers.

You raise an interesting point - whether the defence can rely on evidence which is inadmissible for being unconstitutionally obtained. They can't rely on evidence that is irrelevant.

BornToKill

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

I feel that the Irish legal system is for want of a better word fu-banjaxed.

From top to bottom, it is a slow, awkward system, weighed down in historical precedence, obscure language and dysfunctional in comparison to any modern professional practice. It has priced itself out of the reach of the majority of the citizenry and has become an arms race of the deepest pocket as opposed to a systematic process by which the state and societies laws are enforced in the name of Justice.

There is nothing just about it. How fair a system where the state must subsidize functionaries to provide services that would not otherwise be available and where the option of having a fair, open and competitive market is denied. How fair a system, where if high court injunction is sought, the defendant may have to capitulate due to the cost of what should be their fair right of defense(Costs awarded is not fair and incurs a disproportionate amount of risk on the defendants).

This is a system that shun's openness and closes ranks at every given opportunity in opposition to the democratic state it operates in. It utilizes obscure language as a means of denying oversight, and was singled out by the IMF/EU MOU as being required to be made more open yet nothing has happen. In line with this, it imbues disproportionate power upon its highest members such that they can avoid reform within the society by abusing the very system they are entrusted to maintain.

But I suspect the members of the Legal profession who browse boards are likely not guilty for any of the above, but rather are aware of it as an occupational nuisance.

My question to you, assuming you agree with these shortcomings:

What will it take to turn it around?
Would it be possible to have a comprehensive rewrite?
Are you frustrated with the Law reform commission?
How would you work to make it fairer and more equitable?

As calls for reformation go, this doesn't quite equate with the 'Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences'.

Also, I doubt if you really need to use 'fu-banjaxed' for want of a better word. Many, many better words are readily available.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

There are things that can be done in criminal trials to reduce cost and time. I'll always remember being at a murder trial and watching an expert in balistics describe how the item in his hand was in fact a real firearm. Surely something that could have been done via a certificate instead of a full testimony. He was followed by a tow truck driver who had to testify that the car he delivered to the scenes of crime unit was the same car he picked up at the scene of the murder. Chain of custody is important but unless the defence has some issue with a statement it should not take up the courts time.

In most trials, the defence usually agree to agree chain of evidence, but I would imagine in a murder trial, the defence would put the state on full proof. It is after all a murder trial. What on the face of it is a minor issue, which may only come out in cross could lead to the exclusion of bad evidence.

johnnyskeleton

ResearchWill wrote: »

In most trials, the defence usually agree to agree chain of evidence, but I would imagine in a murder trial, the defence would put the state on full proof. It is after all a murder trial. What on the face of it is a minor issue, which may only come out in cross could lead to the exclusion of bad evidence.

would it really be most trials? If there is a chance to exclude evidence would it not make sense to make the point in every trial? I know there may be credit for not wasting the courts time challenging everything but would most people not take the attitude of "in for a penny, in for a pound"?

ResearchWill

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

would it really be most trials? If there is a chance to exclude evidence would it not make sense to make the point in every trial? I know there may be credit for not wasting the courts time challenging everything but would most people not take the attitude of "in for a penny, in for a pound"?

In my experience such evidence would be challanged if there was some issue in the statements, but other wise it's could be just a waste of time. But it would always depend on the trial in question.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

In most trials, the defence usually agree to agree chain of evidence, but I would imagine in a murder trial, the defence would put the state on full proof. It is after all a murder trial. What on the face of it is a minor issue, which may only come out in cross could lead to the exclusion of bad evidence.

But it would be unusual for this agreement to happen while all the witnesses are already in court. A meeting between prosecution and defence before hand would be much more preferable.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

But it would be unusual for this agreement to happen while all the witnesses are already in court. A meeting between prosecution and defence before hand would be much more preferable.

It would only happen outside of court. If agreement is not forthcoming, from the defence, then the evidence as in the book must be given.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

It would only happen outside of court. If agreement is not forthcoming, from the defence, then the evidence as in the book must be given.

i'm talking about times when the defence doesn't decide they won't need the witness until the morning of the court.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

i'm talking about times when the defence doesn't decide they won't need the witness until the morning of the court.

Yup but it will not be done in front of judge or jury. I do agree it would be better to try and agree this before the court date.

Procrastastudy

Ashashi wrote: »

I must disagree with you here. Limiting liability must be needed in some instances. It is becoming ever more likely that limiting liability in company law may be common place. Auditors are the perfect example because they can be open to huge pools of liability and they may have had little to do with the damage caused. There have been reforms in England (ss. 534-6 of the Companies Acts) that allow an auditor and the company hiring their services to agree to cap the level of liability. I agree with it in this instance.

I'm afraid I know nothing about Company Law so my response may very well be unintelligent. That said, however, from what you have written it seems that this is an agreement between the two parties before the fact. I don't have a problem with that per se - so long as there is not a large difference in power. e.g. all car manufactures getting together and contracting out of liability for a product defect. (I know they can't under s 10 of the LFDPA but I have limited examples to draw on due to a lack of imagination :P). I refer more to an example of someone being hit by a car - an argument could be made that if we limit liability to sat €100K then insurance would be cheaper. That is all well and good but defeats the basic principles of loss distribution.

I'd be quite weary of allowing agreed evidence outside of open Court. There are issues of justice being done in public there surely?

Inverse to the power of one!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why do you say that? Can you point to any actual specific problems? Or even a series of cases that in your view were wrong? Or are you just ranting?

If you don't care to see the faults, I can't help you any more then someone who wishes to believe what they want to see.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Can you give specifics? Sure, there are certain areas where it is very slow, and others where it is ineffecient, but these could be redressed with more judges and better case management facilities.

Where upon FreudianSlippers goes on to say:

It is slow - how do we fix that? The lists are packed and we can't really afford more judges.

The system is so overly expensive it can't afford it's own functionaries. There's a word for that: Dysfunctional.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But again, where is your evidence that anyone is priced out of the market?

Quote me two things:
The hourly rates for barristers and senior council.
And the cost of an injunction at each level.

But because this makes it too expensive for people to seek justice where things are not black and white the system works?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is such a meaningless assertion. Where exactly is the justice lacking? How can you possibly know that there is nothing just about it? Have to looked at every single case and determined that in not one case was justice done? Surely there must be at least a few examples of people being convicted where they deserve it, or being acquitted where they don't? I could show you countless examples of where justice was done (in my opinion anyway) but it is really up to you to show us why you think there is no justice.

Boards can't criticize MCD, journalists can't run stories, and O'Brien and Desmond can libel anyone they want to muzzle them and your saying justice isn't lacking. You don't want to see it do you?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Put simply, the court is a chance for them to put forward their defence. The costs award is actually very fair because if someone is bringing an unfair injunction against an impecunious defendant, as said above, he will probably get lawyers to defend him. Equally, it stops people putting up a non sense defence to an injunction in order to cost the other side more money and delay matters. So ultimately it works in favour of whoever is right in any given dispute.

You completely ignored the risk part. Personal experience with the court system, we had our claim set in time but thanks to the obscurities around law we couldn't be outright sure that we would win and costs awarded. This is bull****, a person/group shouldn't have to incur the risk of hundreds of thousands in costs to defend themselves.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Again, what language do you find obscure and how do you know it is used as a means of denying oversight? Every complex and technical profession has its own jargon, that is simply unavoidable.

Are you joking? Seriously, words such as entwined and items such as these that could be described in English:
http://legum.org/

I work IT, I know technical professions, it's not jargon for the sake of jargon, words have meaning and originate in the same language they were conceived, we do not take to describing system architecture in Latin......

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You are also attributing far too much weight to the Memorandum of Understanding. The targeting of the professions was a very minor part thrown in as a sop to public sector workers to make them feel like they were not the only ones being targeted. The actual changes proposed are in reality very minor in terms of promoting competition over legal fees and are just a way of doing something for "doing something"'s sake.

Wait...what?

You infer possible meaning on the MOU and then tell me I'm attributing far too much weight to it? What...the..

iii. Structural reforms
To increase growth in the domestic services sector
Government will introduce legislative changes to remove restrictions to trade and competition
in sheltered sectors including:
- the legal profession, establishing an independent regulator for the profession and
implementing the recommendations of the Legal Costs Working Group and outstanding
Competition Authority recommendations to reduce legal costs.
- medical services, eliminating restrictions on the number of GPs qualifying and removing
restrictions on GPs wishing to treat public patients as well as restrictions on advertising.
- the pharmacy profession, ensuring that the recent elimination of the 50% mark-up paid for
medicines under the State's Drugs Payments Scheme is enforced.

Seems pretty clear to me.....

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes yes, the usual line of there being these evil lawyers out there that everyone knows about, but never happens to meet and all the lawyers they do meet just happen to be miraculously not part of this group.

That a group of powerful and rich individuals would abuse their position....perish the thought. And no I did not invoke the "evil lawyers".

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1. State the problem (which you have yet to do, other than in very vague terms).
2. Analyise the cause of the problem.
3. Take steps to remedy it.
Simple.

Well, if its that easy, then why doesn't it happen?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why? Really, what is the point, other than to make you feel better? A comprehensive rewrite would most likely include all the laws we currently have such as the prohibition on murder etc. These laws have stood the test of time for a reason, they make sense. But if you want to change these laws which experience have told us are good because you feel in the most vague sense that there is something amiss then tell you local TD this. They will gladly accomodate you and promise all sorts of silly new laws.

That's the crux of the problem: "Silly new laws" whereas the old ones are rarely reviewed to the "test of time" unless there is a massive societal uproar to get it addressed, the illegality of homosexuality being a good example of this.

I can't believe your arguing this in a country that's silly enough to have laws against blasphemy.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There are lots of reforms that I can think of. The system is always changing and hopefully getting better. But until you say exactly what you find wrong with the present system, what is the point of providing such information?

If you're going to push me for examples, give some yourself.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Right. So businesses can go off and do whatever they like with impunity in order to make more money for their shareholders. Yes, that's a good system that I would love to see here!

Did I say that? Did you look in to how NZ implements this?

Inverse to the power of one!

BornToKill wrote: »

As calls for reformation go, this doesn't quite equate with the 'Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences'.

It's a post on boards, not a bloody theses!

BornToKill wrote: »

Also, I doubt if you really need to use 'fu-banjaxed' for want of a better word. Many, many better words are readily available.

So if the language doesn't fit your narrow expectations of how it should be practiced the whole lot goes out the window. Right, works only in Ireland I suppose.

Inverse to the power of one!

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It is slow - how do we fix that? The lists are packed and we can't really afford more judges.

By making judges affordable and effectively managing the lists?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Cases getting dragged out over decades isn't awkward?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What's wrong with the way common law works? What's your alternative.

That's what I came here to ask? I want to learn what the options are.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You think law in the US is the way you see it on TV? Can you show an example of any "modern professional practice" of law that doesn't use legal language?

For someone with an FSM in their sig you project your own belief on to others really. I don't own a TV, I've seen Irish law with my own eyes and am quite convinced that it's badly in need of change.

So tell me, what does the use of terms originating in another language actually serve, when the functional language used in every day life can serve that purpose just as well?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Would you accept it if I said that the problem with the medical profession is that they are too weighed down in historical precedence and obscure language? Or is your problem just that lawyers exist - we all have to get high levels of education to work in this field; I, personally, take some offence to the notion that we're not necessary.

Does the medical profession still use leaches and medical terms of outdated practices in the 1800's? If fact if anything, the medical profession are an extremely good example of a profession that does not weigh itself down in precedence and concerns itself with the best that science can offer NOW in the present.

Also, how in the name of all things spaghetti did you take it to infer that I think Legal professionals are not necessary!!??!! How?

Legal systems are complex and functional requiring highly specialized professionals to operate, I'm simply saying lose the embellishments, get with the times and operate like your fellow professionals in other industries.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is some level of prices being similar. I think, however, that allowing barristers for form chambers and allowing them to work in-house would alleviate some of this problem.

Anything that brings law in to the realm of affordable, thousands are already out the affordability of many people, let along tens and hundreds of thousands should a case escalate.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What do you mean by this? Are you just referring to criminal law here?

Now that you've made me think about it, state legal support is only available for criminal defense? I was more thinking the fact that you can be sued and not necessarily be able to afford your defense, but I defer to your expertise on this.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can you explain this? I'm sure if you teased it out fully you'd realise it doesn't make sense. If the injunction is granted then surely it was deserved, right?
Or are you alleging that the courts are failing to provide and administer justice properly?

An injunction is an expensive accusation where the court decides if it has basis to proceed, that doesn't necessarily make it deserved, and cost really shouldn't be a factor when deciding if an accusation has grounds in law or not.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Explain?

Legal power in Ireland aligns with political power.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Real reform. Focusing on wigs & gowns and "archaic" language and the optical issues is not going to turn it around. The public perspective of what is wrong with the legal system is not actually what is really wrong. It's what the public will buy as the problem because it's easier than focusing on the real problem.

I see your point, I'd simply argue that the optical reflects the attitudes dragged forward, the idea of tradition which has no more a functional basis then the idea of religious practices as valid because they are traditional.

But putting that aside, I concur, functional reform should be the higher priority.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We need barrister and solicitors (they provide these roles in all western countries; although there is no named distinction in the US there are still "trial attorneys" and regular ones). They should be independently monitored both individually as groups and together as a legal profession. The problem with Minister Shatter's proposal is twofold: 1) he's too close to the issue; 2) he grants far too much ministerial power (it's far less objective and independent than he leads on).

Agreed. And if you want to take anything away from my angst on the subject, its the need for independent oversight.

Case in point, a Solicitor I know of had a will originating in their office contested, on submission to forensic testing, it turned out the Signature was forged. This was not pursued on the excuse that the forgery was not shown to have come from the solicitor, but rather their office despite the will being forged to this solicitors benefit.

This can't be tolerated anymore.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No. But I think we could easily bring our system more in line with the far more functional system in the UK.

This is what I've come to the legal discussion forum for, and what I'd love to learn.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not really. I don't know what people expected from them really.

The Commission is an independent body established under the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. Our purpose is to keep the law under review and make recommendations for law reform so that the law reflects the changing needs of Irish society.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think people don't realise how hard it is for young lawyers. Effectively on the breadline for years. For solicitors as well as barristers. Personally, I obviously see the problem with barristers more, but there must be a way to ensure these young people earn some sort of a living wage without having to work 2 or 3 jobs. There are plenty of very good young barristers that are willing to do work and do it well for a fraction of what the more established people will pay; but the solicitors are not giving them work and I think the clients don't know or don't care about that. Then you have the issue of chasing up fees too.

I've had friends who've gone through that process and it's not equitable, it serves as a barrier to entry in to the profession where if you're not well funded or don't have the means to persevere through the entire process you can't make it.

I may be ranting, but reasons like this are one of so many that make the overall picture seem so negative. I'm not here to antagonize you or the legal profession, but I view changing Ireland's legal system as being critical to reforming the country as a whole in the issues it faces. We are in the depths of our worst financial and economic crises and now more then ever we need start-ups, the costs of liability, liability insurance, and legal costs to meet the needs of establishing an business are the most extreme I've seen in Ireland in comparison to most other countries I've lived in. This is literally choking our societies ability to prosper survive and driving our entrepreneurs to other economies when we need them most. Add to that the impact on the individual and wider society in general.

In a sense, we need "good lawyers" now more then ever.

MagicSean

Just to pick up on something you said. The cost of injunctions are generally very high. Why? Because they are generally a restriction on a persons constitutional rights.

Inverse to the power of one!

MagicSean wrote: »

Just to pick up on something you said. The cost of injunctions are generally very high. Why? Because they are generally a restriction on a persons constitutional rights.

If I pick this up right than an individual can utilize money and an accusation that stands basic scrutiny to restrict another persons constitutional rights :eek:

I so hope I'm wrong in thinking this, otherwise things are far worse then I thought and my worst fears about the dysfunction of Ireland realized.

johnnyskeleton

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

If you don't care to see the faults, I can't help you any more then someone who wishes to believe what they want to see.

Come on. If I see a flaw with a political party (for example, that they support the continued bank guarantee) then I can point out quite clearly the problem I have. If I don't like Man United because I'm a Liverpool fan, my criticisms will not be as easy to articulate because it is more a subjective feeling than any rational criticism.

So if there are flaws in the system, point them out to us. Because your suggestion that if everyone doesn't see things the way you do then they must be deluded.

It really is very simple. Here is an example: One problem with the legal system is that there are not enough circuit court judges which means that in some counties cases will not be heard in the court sitting that they are listed in.

That is what we like to call a rational criticism. I don't like dem nasty courts and if you don't understand what I'm talking about then you are deluded is not what would be considered a rational criticism.

Where upon FreudianSlippers goes on to say:

What's your point? There are in my view some areas where the courts can be slow, others where they are not. If another poster doesn't agree with me then that's neither here nor there. You don't seem to be able to state where the delays are nor how they could be fixed. Therefore your views are not a valid basis for reform, but are instead just a rant.

The system is so overly expensive it can't afford it's own functionaries. There's a word for that: Dysfunctional.

What functionaries can it not afford? What are you talking about?

Quote me two things:
The hourly rates for barristers and senior council.
And the cost of an injunction at each level.

But because this makes it too expensive for people to seek justice where things are not black and white the system works?

I would imagine the costs vary from lawyer to lawyer but that is still to miss the point. Can you point to anyone who needs/wants a lawyer but can't afford one? I set out exactly how someone who cannot pay upfront for a lawyer will usually get one to work no foal no fee, get legal aid or enter some other arrangement, but you simply ignore this.

Boards can't criticize MCD, journalists can't run stories, and O'Brien and Desmond can libel anyone they want to muzzle them and your saying justice isn't lacking. You don't want to see it do you?

No I don't. Beause you see that no court ever said that Boards can't criticise MCD. Boards.ie set their own policy of no discussion of MCD events pending a court case. When the decision in Betfair was decided, the boards ban was lifted. But I fail to see how the courts were culpable in this regard. Boards.ie could have carried on anyway and awaited the outcome of the court case. And in fact their rights were vindicated in another court case.

As to journalists not running stories, there has to be a very good reason for this to happen, usually because it is demonstrably untrue and could cause serious reputational injury to someone if it is run. If you think the courts are taking an unfair view of this, that is a different story. It is a matter of some considerable discussion as to whether you should hold free speech above the right to a good reputation. Irish and UK courts tend to favour reputation more than Europe/USA courts do, but they still hold free speech as the dominant right and to curtail it you need an extremely good reason. Certainly, what the courts are doing here is balancing competeing rights rather than denying anyone justice, although obviously the losing party might feel aggreived.

I don't know what you mean about O'Brien and Desmond. If they want to libel someone that person can sue them for damages and/or get an injunction to restrain it.

In fact, the latter two injustices are internally inconsistent on your part. How can it be unjust to prevent a libel on the one hand, and unjust to permit one on the other? It's like saying that all people who are convicted of a crime are unfairly convicted, but all people who are acquitted are also unfairly acquitted. Make up your bloody mind.

You completely ignored the risk part. Personal experience with the court system, we had our claim set in time but thanks to the obscurities around law we couldn't be outright sure that we would win and costs awarded. This is bull****, a person/group shouldn't have to incur the risk of hundreds of thousands in costs to defend themselves.

First, no system of human justice can 100% guarantee a desired result. There is always risk in litigation and this is true in every single country on earth. With perhaps the exception of show trials, the ultimate result is never certain. That is unavoidable.

As to having to pay the costs of defending a case, well you are ignoring the opposite side of that coin. Let's say that you build a fence on someone else's land. They will have to bring you to court to get their land back. If you defend it and lose, why should they have to pay the costs of the proceedings? But also, if you want to defend yourself without lawyers, you can do so. You can walk into court, set out your defence, and let a judge decide. It is not mandatory that you engage lawyers, but it is usual practice that if you commit a wrong against someone and don't agree to fix it before court, forcing them to go to court to establish their rights, you will have to pay for that. If it were otherwise, people would be free to commit all sorts of civil wrongs with impunity and then put up a filibuster defence to the proceedings.

So ultimately, someone has to pay the cost of the proceedings. It would in my view be worse if a successful plaintiff had to pay the costs of their proceedings than if an unsuccessful defendant had to pay the costs.

Are you joking? Seriously, words such as entwined and items such as these that could be described in English:
http://legum.org/

I work IT, I know technical professions, it's not jargon for the sake of jargon, words have meaning unlike those silly wigs m'lud.

This is the whole point of your rant. You don't understand the courts, therefore you assume it is jargon for the sake of jargon. Anyone who doesn't understand IT would say that they also employ jargon for the sake of jargon.

In terms of latin phrases, the ones that don't have a specific legal meaning have mostly been abandoned. Those that remain usually refer to a specific doctorine rather than a simple phrase. So lawyers use the phrase res ipsa loquitor becuase it is easier than setting out the entire rule every time one wishes to rely upon it. Otherwise, it would be like someone in IT saying Domain Name Server instead of DNS all the time. You should also be aware that many latin phrases are used in ordinary language and I don't want to traverse these ad nausem or question your bona fides etc.

Wait...what?

You infer possible meaning on the MOU and then tell me I'm attributing far too much weight to it? What...the..

Yes. There is nothing inconsistent in that. The MOU does not support your view that the entire justice system be dismantled and started again. It says that certain changes be made which are not massive changes at all. When they performed their 3rd quarter review and the government said "whoops, we haven't even published the bill yet, but we'll do it sometime next week" the EU/IMF pretty much said "fine, we don't really care about that, so long as the budget is on track".

So I think the weight to be attached to the MOU is fairly minimal as a criticism of the entire justice system.

Well, if its that easy, then why doesn't it happen?

You tell me. The logical conclusion is that very few people see these problems that you see, or don't see them as being as bad as you do, hence they do not take steps to fix them. But one obvious thing to do is to get more judges, more registrars, more prison spaces, more gardai, more courts and more effective computer systems. Some of these things are being done at the moment, but also these things cost money. Since we don't have unlimited resources, the system must be run as best it can with the resources allocated to it.

That's the crux of the problem: "Silly new laws" whereas the old ones are rarely reviewed to the "test of time" unless there is a massive societal uproar to get it addressed, the illegality of homosexuality being a good example of this.

Reluctant as I am to comment on you personally, you really know nothing about our legal syste. Old laws are reviewed all the time. There have been several declarations of unconstitutionality in the last few years and many other challenges where the laws have been upheld. There have been cases where the interpretation of these laws has been changed dramatically too.

In relation to the illegality of homosexuality, yet again you display your lack of understanding. This was not caused by societal uproar to get it addressed. If it were, that would be a matter for the government, not for the courts. Instead, it was the personal views of one senator that ultimately persevered in the ECHR in bringing about that particular change.

For ffs, I can't believe your arguing this in a country that's silly enough to have laws against blasphemy.

Laws which, in reality, are not enforced. If someone was charged with blasphemy, I'm sure they would bring a challenge and there is a strong liklihood that they would be successful. If you want those laws taken off the statute books, then really it is a matter for the government rather than the courts, but you are of course free to challenge these laws in the courts if you like.

If you're going to push me for examples, give some yourself.

No but you see you are the one who is saying that it is wrong. If you want to discuss this like an adult you have to show the examples of what is wrong. Asserting something and then saying "it is up to everyone else to prove me wrong" is not a valid basis for rational discussion. I also think it is against many of the boards.ie forum charters.

Did I say that? Did you look in to how NZ implements this?

Well you are taking about reducing liability for businesses. In my view, it would make sense to weed out and prosecute fraudulent claims (which, by the way, the courts are already doing) rather than bring in artificial rules which limit the possibility of redress for any wrongdoing. I am not familiar with the specifics of what they do in NZ and if you want Ireland to make similar reforms then why not state exactly what you think should be done instead of relying on generalities.

I do have some familiarity of Australian Personal Injuries laws whereby certain states don't permit compensation for an injury that is less than X% of total body incapacity. This means that if your leg is unlawfully broken, but this is considered to be less than X% total body injury, you get no compensation. This seems a completely irrational and arbitrary limitation on liability to me, and would probably not survive our constitution.

johnnyskeleton

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Does the medical profession still use leaches and medical terms of outdated practices in the 1800's? If fact if anything, the medical profession are an extremely good example of a profession that does not weigh itself down in precedence and concerns itself with the best that science can offer NOW in the present.

No but it still uses penicillin, quinnine, leg splints, anasthetics, surgeries, etc that date back a hundred year or more. Why? Because things that have stood the test of time have been kept and those which don't are discarded.

At no point did someone come along and say "medicine is rubbish, lets scrap it all and start again from scratch" without pointing out those areas which are good and which are not.

In terms of the legal system, a similar situation exists. Laws which have proved useful such as the prohibition on murder have been kept. Those which have not e.g. the rule against marital rape have been discarded.

You don't seem to understand the fairly basis concept that science develops over time and is simply a modern thing., nor does someone come along one day and say "this is science, that is not science". The system of laws we have is based on how long established rules have been changed, improved and sometimes discarded as society has progressed.

Really, unless you have substance to your claims, I don't see the point in discussing these generalities with you. As they might say in AH, specifics, or GTFO.

FreudianSlippers

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

By making judges affordable and effectively managing the lists?

It has nothing to do with affordability of Judges. IMO the problem is in the listing system - I think there are far too many cases for the current system.

Cases getting dragged out over decades isn't awkward?

Can you highlight any of these cases that have been dragged out over decades?

That's what I came here to ask? I want to learn what the options are.

That's not the way this forum (or any other on boards) works. You don't just come in here and vaguely say the system is broken and then expect us to tell you why/how.

The alternatives are Civil Law or Religious Law; Civil Law has its advantages, but is lacking in stare decisis which, IMO, allows the law to evolve more rapidly in the direction of current life/values/etc.

For someone with an FSM in their sig you project your own belief on to others really.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm not projecting anything. I'm just asking for what you're talking about... it's not difficult.

I don't own a TV, I've seen Irish law with my own eyes and am quite convinced that it's badly in need of change.

Good for you. Why is it badly in need of change?

So tell me, what does the use of terms originating in another language actually serve, when the functional language used in every day life can serve that purpose just as well?

So you suggest we don't speak English in trial because it contains terms originating in another language?

Can you provide any examples of a situation where courts do not use "functional everyday language" and how there would be benefit in using such language?

Does the medical profession still use leaches and medical terms of outdated practices in the 1800's?

Yes.

If fact if anything, the medical profession are an extremely good example of a profession that does not weigh itself down in precedence and concerns itself with the best that science can offer NOW in the present.

Think about what you're saying very carefully; medicine isn't worried about precedent?

Mosby's Medical Dictionary wrote:

[pres′ədənt]
Etymology: L, praecedere, to go before

a previously adjudged decision that serves as an authority in a similar case.

Medicine is almost entirely precedent based.

Also, how in the name of all things spaghetti did you take it to infer that I think Legal professionals are not necessary!!??!! How?

What's your point then? You stated that the obscure language etc. was part of the problem. You're complaining about the costs - I can only draw the conclusion that you think it should be a lawyerless place where Joe Soap off the street goes in, the Judge says "story?" and [insert any episode of Judge Judy here].

Legal systems are complex and functional requiring highly specialized professionals to operate, I'm simply saying lose the embellishments, get with the times and operate like your fellow professionals in other industries.

What embellishments? What's wrong with those embellishments? Can you give me examples of other industries that have had to "get with the times"?

Anything that brings law in to the realm of affordable, thousands are already out the affordability of many people, let along tens and hundreds of thousands should a case escalate.

Have you ever considered it's just capitalism? Would you be happy if the government started saying how much a carpenter could charge?

If you're unhappy with how much your solicitor is charging then get a new one. Law is expensive and if you think this is any different in the USA or elsewhere, you're kidding yourself.

Now that you've made me think about it, state legal support is only available for criminal defense? I was more thinking the fact that you can be sued and not necessarily be able to afford your defense, but I defer to your expertise on this.

There is civil legal aid, but you must satisfy a means test and show that your case has merit (that is: a prospect of success, whether there is a means of alternative resolution and a cost/benefit analysis).

If you are being sued and you satisfy this you may get civil legal aid. You should also consider if you're being sued whether or not there is a good reason for that. I mean, if you're going to win why worry about costs?

An injunction is an expensive accusation where the court decides if it has basis to proceed, that doesn't necessarily make it deserved, and cost really shouldn't be a factor when deciding if an accusation has grounds in law or not.

No. An injunction is an Order restraining a person from carrying out an act or requiring a person to perform an act.
It is then for the party seeking that injunction to prove that their right(s) need to be protected from infringement. If you're it's not an "expensive accusation" and the courts will not grant injunctions to protect trivial rights.

I suggest you read up on this area, even wikipedia.

I see your point, I'd simply argue that the optical reflects the attitudes dragged forward, the idea of tradition which has no more a functional basis then the idea of religious practices as valid because they are traditional.

No... that makes no sense. Are you complaining about wigs and gowns here?
Or is your problem that we practice common law? You need to be more specific about how "tradition" is causing any problems.

Agreed. And if you want to take anything away from my angst on the subject, its the need for independent oversight.

I have no problem with independent oversight. The Minister's proposals are anything but that.

Case in point, a Solicitor I know of had a will originating in their office contested, on submission to forensic testing, it turned out the Signature was forged. This was not pursued on the excuse that the forgery was not shown to have come from the solicitor, but rather their office despite the will being forged to this solicitors benefit.

That makes no sense.

This is what I've come to the legal discussion forum for, and what I'd love to learn.

On boards you do not get to just come in and invite people to tell you why things should change. It makes no sense. Post something with detail as to why you think the system isn't working - vagueness and asking us to tell you why we should keep the system isn't gonna cut it.

I've had friends who've gone through that process and it's not equitable, it serves as a barrier to entry in to the profession where if you're not well funded or don't have the means to persevere through the entire process you can't make it.

What?

I may be ranting, but reasons like this are one of so many that make the overall picture seem so negative. I'm not here to antagonize you or the legal profession, but I view changing Ireland's legal system as being critical to reforming the country as a whole in the issues it faces. We are in the depths of our worst financial and economic crises and now more then ever we need start-ups, the costs of liability, liability insurance, and legal costs to meet the needs of establishing an business are the most extreme I've seen in Ireland in comparison to most other countries I've lived in. This is literally choking our societies ability to prosper survive and driving our entrepreneurs to other economies when we need them most. Add to that the impact on the individual and wider society in general.

Can you explain how the cost of private transactions on a client-lawyer basis is adding to the financial and economic crisis?

In a sense, we need "good lawyers" now more then ever.

What does that mean?

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

If you don't care to see the faults, I can't help you any more then someone who wishes to believe what they want to see.

That makes, literally, no sense.

Where upon FreudianSlippers goes on to say:


The system is so overly expensive it can't afford it's own functionaries. There's a word for that: Dysfunctional.

You're taking what I said incorrectly. I'm not saying there are undue delays - the legal system is slow moving at times. It's just the nature of it.
In the interests of fairness you have to give parties adequate time to do things; it doesn't mean the system is broken, it means it is working.

Quote me two things:
The hourly rates for barristers and senior council.

There is no such thing as an hourly rate. Am I correct in proposing that the government steps in to regulate the amount people can charge for services in private transactions? That's wild, communist stuff there isn't it?

And the cost of an injunction at each level.

You seem to be obsessed with injunctions. Either way, it really depends on the solicitor's fees. It's also likely to be more expensive for the person applying for the injunction.

Boards can't criticize MCD, journalists can't run stories, and O'Brien and Desmond can libel defame anyone they want to muzzle them and your saying justice isn't lacking. You don't want to see it do you?

Firstly, you're lacking even a functional knowledge of defamation here. Boards can criticise MCD or anyone they want once it is not defamatory.
Journalists can run stories once they're not defamatory.

I suggest you have a look here and do some reading, especially defences under part 3.

You completely ignored the risk part. Personal experience with the court system, we had our claim set in time but thanks to the obscurities around law we couldn't be outright sure that we would win and costs awarded. This is bull****, a person/group shouldn't have to incur the risk of hundreds of thousands in costs to defend themselves.

You can never be sure you will win anything. If you have a strong case then you should take it; otherwise you shouldn't. You think there should be no risk in taking a legal action? Never going to happen and doesn't happen anywhere that I can think of.

Are you joking? Seriously, words such as entwined and items such as these that could be described in English:
http://legum.org/

This is ridiculous. You're on a crusade against Latin now too?

I work IT, I know technical professions, it's not jargon for the sake of jargon, words have meaning and originate in the same language they were conceived, we do not take to describing system architecture in Latin......

It's not jargon for the sake of jargon. They are concise and precise words used - "plain" English in place of them would make things way more confusing.

That's the crux of the problem: "Silly new laws" whereas the old ones are rarely reviewed to the "test of time" unless there is a massive societal uproar to get it addressed, the illegality of homosexuality being a good example of this.

You're not making a good case for your point here... you're describing a legislative problem.

I can't believe your arguing this in a country that's silly enough to have laws against blasphemy.

Yes, introduced into legislation in the Defamation Act 2009 by the legislature... this has what exactly to do with the Courts?

If you're going to push me for examples, give some yourself.

This is your thread. The onus is on you.

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

If I pick this up right than an individual can utilize money and an accusation that stands basic scrutiny to restrict another persons constitutional rights :eek:

I so hope I'm wrong in thinking this, otherwise things are far worse then I thought and my worst fears about the dysfunction of Ireland realized.

You're picking it up incorrectly. You don't just walk in and get an injunction, you need to satisfy the Court that you deserve one.

The Commission is an independent body established under the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. Our purpose is to keep the law under review and make recommendations for law reform so that the law reflects the changing needs of Irish society.

I suggest you look here.

Procrastastudy

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void main()
{
cout << "Hello World!" << endl; cout << "Welcome to C++ Programming" << endl; }

OMG I don't understand that having not invested anytime what so ever in looking at a C++ Book! The IT industry is elitist and badly in need of a rewrite from the ground up!

I really thought we were in for a sensible discussion when you first posted but it seems you are unwilling to even go an look up "common law" on wikipedia.

If you are going to make an assertion in an effort to illicit a response from people at least go and do some research to challenge their argument when it is put forward. Before anyone goes slagging me off for my first post I did do some background research first :P

MagicSean

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

If I pick this up right than an individual can utilize money and an accusation that stands basic scrutiny to restrict another persons constitutional rights :eek:

I so hope I'm wrong in thinking this, otherwise things are far worse then I thought and my worst fears about the dysfunction of Ireland realized.

You would prefer people had the ability to interfere with your constitutional rights whenever they want?

johnnyskeleton

I see that Inverse to the power of one! has now closed his boards.ie account.

In summary, I suspect his point was this:

1. He was facing injunctive proceedings which he believed he was correct in defending.

2. He went to a solicitor seeking representation and advice to the effect that he would definately win.

3. No solicitor can give that advice (after all, he could be lying and the other side might have very good supporting documentation etc to prove this) and told him that there is always a risk of being unsuccessful and thereby exposing ones self to costs.

4. He therefore refused to defend the proceedings and infers from this one experience that the entire legal profession is unfair.

Well, the simple answer is that no solicitor can ever give a guarantee of success, because to do so would expose the solicitor to a negligence claim if it doesn't work out. Besides, a solicitor can only say what the law is, not how it will be applied in a particular case.

If he didn't want to run that risk on a cost/benefit analysis, that is fine. If he ran it and won, then there wouldn't be a problem. If he ran it and lost, it is likely that he has breached someone else's rights and they were correct to seek redress.

Any of the above outcomes seem reasonably fair. The only likely situation where it would not be fair is where there may be a good defence, but it is only a 50:50 shot. He therefore claims that the rule that costs follow the event is unjust, because it discouraged him from running a "have a go" defence to proceedings without any risk of having to pay for it..

If the shoe were on the other foot though, I'm sure he would complain that he couldn't get lawyers to run his own injunction claim because they had to be paid upfront as there was no mechanism for the payment of costs. If he were in such a situation, the rule about costs would seem fair and reasonable.

Thus, what is needed is not total overhaul of the system, but a little perspective.

newmug

The "law" is badly in need of a shakedown though. Read the below thread for an example of injustice. Note the peoples responses.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056549268&page=2

johnnyskeleton

newmug wrote: »

The "law" is badly in need of a shakedown though. Read the below thread for an example of injustice. Note the peoples responses.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056549268&page=2

Why? Why do people think they can just lazily link a thread and say "look at this for an example of what I mean". What's in that thread to suggest there is a need for law reform?

Tom Young

And in the AH thread of all places .... Like!!

ResearchWill

newmug wrote: »

The "law" is badly in need of a shakedown though. Read the below thread for an example of injustice. Note the peoples responses.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056549268&page=2

So what is the injustice that the accused got a directed not guilty verdict http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0215/mccaugheym.html or that the robber got a compensation payment.