Judge who held CRH shares forced to recuse himself

Fair Competition

Yesterday, on 13th November 2012, High Court Judge, John Cooke recused himself from a concrete cartel case he had been hearing because he held over €120,000 in CRH shares where CRH were the defendants. Judge Cooke disclosed at the beginning of the case "that a very small number of CRH shares feature somewhere in my pension fund". However, it has emerged that after making that statement a further 2,500 shares were bought in his name.

How could a Judge consider himself impartial and independent when he himself has a significant financial investment in the Defendants?

Sponge Bob

Maybe he does not manage his own pension fund and had to ASK how exposed he was.

It is not surprising that a pension fund has CRH shares given their overall index weight.

I fail to see the point of your starting a thread on this unless you are certain YOUR pension fund is clear of CRH shares.

seamus

Fair Competition wrote: »

How could a Judge consider himself impartial and independent when he himself has a significant financial investment in the Defendants?

He clearly didn't, since he stepped down.

I'm not seeing the issue here. Judge in "ethically sound" shocker?

EU Rights

Of course this is extremely signifcant and should not be dismissed by any stretch of the imagaination. The pension fund issue is irrelevant - we are talking about judicial intergrity. Surely a Judge should be precisely aware of his financial interests in any one entity considering his job? The case in issue here is huge and has significant consequences for the state and public at large. Pelading ignorance to what you might own is simply not good enough. It would presumably not have been hard for the Judge to make enquiries to ascertain the extent of his shareholdings. In fact this is the least you would expect a Senior Judge of the High Court to do.

A number of questions must therefore be asked about this.

Why did the Judge imply that he had a small shareholding when clearly he doesn't?

Why did the Judge not make a full disclosure of his financial interests from the outset rather than merely allude to a suspicion he may have held shares in CRH?

Why did the Judge not disclose his further acquisition of shares after the case was underway? Surely a plea of ignorance as to his own assets is not good enough? One must question the judicial standards and procedures being upheld in this regard.

Why has the Judge still not made a full declaration of his precise shareholding? Why should there be any ambiguity at all about this?
There is a huge amount at stake for all parties in this case. It also has a huge public interest element considering CRH are by far the biggest plc in the state. Judicial impartiality is therefore of upmost importance.

Why is the Judge unhappy about this - it is his duty to disclose his interests. It is not for the parties to invsetigate them and brign them to his attention. The fact that he was so dimissive of his (subtantial) shareholding just seems arrogant.

I also note from the article on the front page of the Sunday Times on 11th November that the Judge was consulting with the President of the High Court regarding the matter. Is there not an inconsistency in the Courts Service announcing that the trial judge is having a word with the President of The High Court about the trial judge's shares but that the judge will deal with it in open court?

The trial judge had a warrant to try the Goode case. What possible role could there be in the trial judge discussing behind closed doors the same case with the president of the High Court? Should judges be discussing cases with other judges in any event? The centre of this debate has just shifted to the question of fellow judicial interference with a matter.

Also why is it appropriate that a judge who does not have seisen of case should be consulted at all at all? Both the Plaintiff and the Defendants are not privy to this communication or discussion, did not frame the questions and have no context for the answers and cannot know whether the report of the discussion is accurate of not. Does this not bring us back to the integrity of the judiciar? Apart from the President managing the allocation of workload why should it be considered proper that he could be unilaterally consulted by the trail judge who should make his own decision re objective bias? In consulting with Justice Cooke regarding his shareholding is not the trial judge going beyond his warrant? Was that not a question he had to ask of himself and no other?

Huge fundamentals here.

antoobrien

EU Rights wrote: »

Why did the Judge imply that he had a small shareholding when clearly he doesn't?

What was the judge aware of at the outset?

Was the judge aware of the exact holding - it seems likely not.
Was the judge aware of the value of the holdng, it seems likely not.

EU Rights wrote: »

Why did the Judge not make a full disclosure of his financial interests from the outset rather than merely allude to a suspicion he may have held shares in CRH?

A bit disingenuous there, the judge made a disclosure of what he was aware of. As has been pointed out he may not have been aware of the extend of his holding.

I work in IT, my pension fund may or may not have shares of our competition or suppliers - I don't have control over what the individual funds buy, so it may well be the case that we have at least one of each category in there.

Does that mean I need to go off to our legal department and declare potential conflicts of interests?

EU Rights wrote: »

Why did the Judge not disclose his further acquisition of shares after the case was underway? Surely a plea of ignorance as to his own assets is not good enough? One must question the judicial standards and procedures being upheld in this regard.

It appears that he did, as soon as the actual extend of the find became clear.

EU Rights wrote: »

Why has the Judge still not made a full declaration of his precise shareholding?

That's a serious allegation, you'll need documentary evidence to back it up - do you know more than the judge does?

QUOTE=EU Rights;81741258]
Why is the Judge unhappy about this - it is his duty to disclose his interests. It is not for the parties to invsetigate them and brign them to his attention. The fact that he was so dimissive of his (subtantial) shareholding just seems arrogant.[/quote]

I'd be unhappy if my private financial details were being spalshed all over the papers in an effort to discredit me.

EU Rights wrote: »

I also note from the article on the front page of the Sunday Times on 11th November that the Judge was consulting with the President of the High Court regarding the matter. Is there not an inconsistency in the Courts Service announcing that the trial judge is having a word with the President of The High Court about the trial judge's shares but that the judge will deal with it in open court?

Seriously, the President of the high court is the correct person to be asking advice from - his immediate boss.

EU Rights wrote: »

Huge fundamentals here.

A lot of fundamentals allright - but very few of them legal, mostly to do with misunderstandings of financial and procedural issues

Farmer Pudsey

I do not think that any judge would knowingly put himself in a conflict of intrest position.

It may be the case that he makesure to be unaware of what is in his pension fund so that there cannot be a conflict of intrest. Many in this situtation would have blind investment funds that they may be unware of. Most people are unware what is in there fund if it is managed by a fund.

He did not discuss the case as I understand with the Presidant of the High Court rather he discussed the possible conflict of intrest. It would be nigh impossible to get judges to preside over cases if every time they had an intrest they hade to recuse themselves.

In this case he had a small intrest at the start of the case he may have been aware of and he and the Presidant of the High Court feld it was not an amount that would cause a conflict, however that changes when his pension fund purchassed more.

Fair Competition

seamus wrote: »

He clearly didn't, since he stepped down.

seamus wrote: »

I'm not seeing the issue here. Judge in "ethically sound"shocker?

He had been hearing the case for two years before he stepped down. He issued one judgement in favour of CRH and awarded costs against the plaintiffs. He also issued a judgment stating that in order for the case to proceed the plaintiffs would have to put up €185,000 in security for costs. This is almost impossible task for a company who is impecunious as a direct result of the defendant’s anticompetitive practices. If Judge Cooke had found in favour of the plaintiffs CRH shares would have taken a nosedive and likewise his financial investment. Major conflict of interest here.

antoobrien wrote: »

What wasthe judge aware of at the outset?

antoobrien wrote: »

Was the judge aware of the exact holding - it seems likely not.

Was the judge aware of the value of the holdng, it seems likely not.

According to Capita registers Judge Cooke has six separate accounts in which CRH shares have been held in his OWN name as far back as 1993. Judge Cooke was also the senior counsel who represented Irish Cement Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of CRH, in its appeal against the 1994 European Commission decision which found Irish Cement guilty of operating a pan-European cement cartel and fined it accordingly.

antoobrien wrote: »

A bit disingenuous there, the judge made adisclosure of what he was aware of. As has been pointed out he may not havebeen aware of the extend of his holding.

His home address is the registered address for his CRH shareholding and not any pension fund. One would assume he receives dividends directly to his home and therefore would be fully aware of the nature of his shareholding.



It would appear from Capita registers that Judge Cooke has been buying and selling CRH shares for years.

Farmer Pudsey

Fair Competition wrote: »

He had been hearing the case for two years before he stepped down. He issued one judgement in favour of CRH and awarded costs against the plaintiffs. He also issued a judgment stating that in order for the case to proceed the plaintiffs would have to put up €185,000 in security for costs. This is almost impossible task for a company who is impecunious as a direct result of the defendant’s anticompetitive practices. If Judge Cooke had found in favour of the plaintiffs CRH shares would have taken a nosedive and likewise his financial investment. Major conflict of interest here.






According to Capita registers Judge Cooke has six separate accounts in which CRH shares have been held in his OWN name as far back as 1993. Judge Cooke was also the senior counsel who represented Irish Cement Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of CRH, in its appeal against the 1994 European Commission decision which found Irish Cement guilty of operating a pan-European cement cartel and fined it accordingly.





His home address is the registered address for his CRH shareholding and not any pension fund. One would assume he receives dividends directly to his home and therefore would be fully aware of the nature of his shareholding.



It would appear from Capita registers that Judge Cooke has been buying and selling CRH shares for years.

If everything is as you have stated he should have recused himself earlier. I have not read any article about it so do not know. However it was strange that counsel for Goode concrete pursued it this way

Sponge Bob

Why did you not state all that in your first post and do you have LINKS to back up what you said.?

Fair Competition

Front page of last weekend's Sunday Times and below link

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/1114/1224326574457.html

[Jackass]

I'm not famaliar with the workings of the case, but have there been any objections from his pears or any evidence what so ever that any judgement he made in the case had even a remote sniff of bias?

Just because he had an exposure of which he wasn't aware of the extent to, and he judges in favour of of CRH doesn't mean it's not an entirely just and correct call.

They still have a right to appeal and you are completely over stating both the judges exposure to CRH and his awareness to any level of exposure and are simply trying to spread misinformation as you are more than likely connected to the plaintiff somehow.

Trying to make something out of absolutely nothing. The judge stepped down in the interest of non-bias after plaintiff lawyers went sniffing for any straws to grasp at when their bitter action taken against CRH was dismissed.

[Jackass]

Put it this way, when you have a username such as "fair competition" and you're starting a thread about a high court case relating to unfair competition, and every single one of your previous posts has related to CRH in some way, even how you tried to bring "The concrete Cartels is an obvious example" of cartels in Ireland in other threads....you obviously lack credibility.

I would also be suspicious of someone who would take the time register as "EU Rights" and only make one post on boards, specifically to back up your points.

I call you out sir.

Fair Competition

[Jackass] wrote: »

I'm not famaliar with the workings of the case, but have there been any objections from his pears or any evidence what so ever that any judgement he made in the case had even a remote sniff of bias?

[Jackass] wrote: »

Just because he had an exposure of which he wasn't aware of the extent to, and he judges in favour of of CRH doesn't mean it's not an entirely just and correct call.

They still have a right to appeal and you are completely over stating both the judges exposure to CRH and his awareness to any level of exposure and are simply trying to spread misinformation as you are more than likely connected to the plaintiff somehow.

Trying to make something out of absolutely nothing. The judge stepped down in the interest of non-bias after plaintiff lawyers went sniffing for any straws to grasp at when their bitter action taken against CRH was dismissed.

Judge Cooke was presiding over two separate cases in which CRH are defendants. The first case Framus Ltd & others V CRH plc & others was struck out for delay by Judge Cooke in July. That judgement is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court where one of the grounds of appeal is that there was or could have been a perception of bias due to Judge Cooke's UNDISCLOSED shareholding in CRH plc and the the fact that he was their former barrister before in became a judge. Judge Cooke did not declare in this case that he was a shareholder in CRH, pensions or otherwise.

The second case is Goode Concrete V CRH plc & others. This case is currently at pre-trial stage. Judge Cooke has made two important judgements in this case. He failed to grant an injuction against CRH's below cost selling in the Dublin concrete market and also delivered a security for costs ruling which forced Goode Concrete to put up €185,000 in order to proceed to discovery phase. Security for costs are a barrier to entry for any anyone who has been put out of business through anti-competitive practices. EU Law states that

“The rules on procedures and sanctions which national courts apply to enforce Community law — must not make such enforcement excessively difficult or practically impossible.” This is known as the principle of effectiveness.

Private enforcement of Competition Law is rendered "excessively difficult or practically impossible" when a company / person is forced to pay security for costs when they themselves are impecunious.

Fair Competition

[Jackass] wrote: »

Put it this way, when you have a username such as "fair competition" and you're starting a thread about a high court case relating to unfair competition, and every single one of your previous posts has related to CRH in some way, even how you tried to bring "The concrete Cartels is an obvious example" of cartels in Ireland in other threads....you obviously lack credibility.

I would also be suspicious of someone who would take the time register as "EU Rights" and only make one post on boards, specifically to back up your points.

I call you out sir.

I have taken particular interest in these cases. Please see below link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obw6G-sSnMI

Sponge Bob

[Jackass] wrote: »

and every single one of your previous posts has related to CRH in some way

I call you out sir.

Registering on Boards.ie solely to discuss Concrete Cartels and associated matters strikes me as very sad.

Registering on Boards.ie solely to post in the politics part of it also strikes me as sad.

Smote I am with sadness, sniffz.

Head The Wall

If what the poster has to say is true then I don't find it sad. A lot of the time these kinds of things get hidden.

What about the sex abuse in the magdalen schools, Letterfrack etc

rugbyman

Sponge Bob , you and i have conversed in the past , all good.

However in this case , regardless of whether Fair Competion and Eu rights are even the actual Goodes, if what they say is true, then surely you should thank them for their info, rather than blag about their motives and late arrival. Seamus the dentist , farmer p,jackass and your self jumped in to attack, farmer p at least backed off a bit, seamus either cant think of what to do or is busy while you and jackass continue to dig further into the same hole.

the facts of any subject to be discussed are what matter not the reasons why he who presents them does.

regards Rugbyman

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Please don't accuse other posters of shilling, sock-puppeting or trolling on thread - report these posts to a moderator.

_Kaiser_

The bigger issue here of course - amongst all this talk of motives and usernames - is the threat to the integrity of the judiciary.

Considering a colleague of the judge in this case is currently in court for alleged financial irregularities in the handling of a client's will, it's even more worrying that only days later, we have another judge being investigated.

Both of these cases - regardless of who brought them to light - should be fully and properly investigated (not something we do well in this country) and the persons in question either completely exonerated, or brought to account.

Sponge Bob

rugbyman wrote: »

Sponge Bob , you and i have conversed in the past , all good.

However in this case , regardless of whether Fair Competion and Eu rights are even the actual Goodes, if what they say is true, then surely you should thank them for their info,

We never exchanged a cross word. However the OP should have disclosed the full case when the started the thread instead of having it dragged out of them. They appear to have a strong case....belatedly may I say.

EU Rights

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We never exchanged a cross word. However the OP should have disclosed the full case when the started the thread instead of having it dragged out of them. They appear to have a strong case....belatedly may I say.

I would just like to state for the record that I am not the same person as Fair Competition and do not appreciate the implication of shilling.

It is very much my own opinion that this is a serious matter and shouldn't be so easily dismissed by some of the previous posters. Shane Ross actually raised the question in the Dail yesterday, so clearly these views are shared by others.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1115/1224326606767.html

It comes back to the issue of regulation. We failed to regulate the banks and look what happened. One of the bastions of any properly functioning democracy is an independent and impartial judiciary. I agree with Senator Ross in that we need to ensure the absolute highest standards are adhered to when assessing potential conflicts of interest.

Casual inklings or proper declarations of financial interests? I would much prefer the certainty of the latter.

EU Rights

EU Rights wrote: »

I would just like to state for the record that I am not the same person as Fair Competition and do not appreciate the implication of shilling.

It is very much my own opinion that this is a serious matter and shouldn't be so easily dismissed by some of the previous posters. Shane Ross actually raised the question in the Dail yesterday, so clearly these views are shared by others.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1115/1224326606767.html

It comes back to the issue of regulation. We failed to regulate the banks and look what happened. One of the bastions of any properly functioning democracy is an independent and impartial judiciary. I agree with Senator Ross in that we need to ensure the absolute highest standards are adhered to when assessing potential conflicts of interest.

Casual inklings or proper declarations of financial interests? I would much prefer the certainty of the latter.

It should also be added that the taxpayer is now most likely going to have to pay for the fact that a proper declaration wasn't made by the Judge at the start of the case.

jmayo

rugbyman wrote: »

Sponge Bob , you and i have conversed in the past , all good.

However in this case , regardless of whether Fair Competion and Eu rights are even the actual Goodes, if what they say is true, then surely you should thank them for their info, rather than blag about their motives and late arrival. Seamus the dentist , farmer p,jackass and your self jumped in to attack, farmer p at least backed off a bit, seamus either cant think of what to do or is busy while you and jackass continue to dig further into the same hole.

the facts of any subject to be discussed are what matter not the reasons why he who presents them does.

regards Rugbyman

I find it sad that in this case the OP who highlighted this issue was immediately questioned and discredited.

How many times have posters on this site lamented that we do not have protection for whistleblowers and the like ?
Yet when someone does draw attention to something which looks rather fishy within our judical system, posters jump to find excuses for the judge in question and at the same time question the bonafides of the original poster.

So what if the person has an interest only in this case ?
And so what if the person has a connection with one particular side in this case ?
Does that negate what appears to be a real issue and cause for concern regarding the impartiality of the judge ?
Of course some posters it seems want to shoot the messenger.
I think it is up to them to explain themsevles not the OP.

The fact that in this country we have for far too long meekly taken the word and honour of certain individuals in positions of power as sacrosanct is the bloody reason we are in the mess we are.
For too long people have leapt to the defence of our church, our politicans, our legal professionals, our bankers, Gardaí, etc rather than make them answer questions.

If anything it is now time we question anyone in a position of power as to their connections.
If they have nothing to hide then fine.

I think it is imperative the personal investments and finances of any judge are known if they are hearing cases that may involve companies linked to those investments.

EU Rights

jmayo wrote: »

I find it sad that in this case the OP who highlighted this issue was immediately questioned and discredited.

How many times have posters on this site lamented that we do not have protection for whistleblowers and the like ?
Yet when someone does draw attention to something which looks rather fishy within our judical system, posters jump to find excuses for the judge in question and at the same time question the bonafides of the original poster.

So what if the person has an interest only in this case ?
And so what if the person has a connection with one particular side in this case ?
Does that negate what appears to be a real issue and cause for concern regarding the impartiality of the judge ?
Of course some posters it seems want to shoot the messenger.
I think it is up to them to explain themsevles not the OP.

The fact that in this country we have for far too long meekly taken the word and honour of certain individuals in positions of power as sacrosanct is the bloody reason we are in the mess we are.
For too long people have leapt to the defence of our church, our politicans, our legal professionals, our bankers, Gardaí, etc rather than make them answer questions.

If anything it is now time we question anyone in a position of power as to their connections.
If they have nothing to hide then fine.

I think it is imperative the personal investments and finances of any judge are known if they are hearing cases that may involve companies linked to those investments.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/shane-ross/shane-ross-judge-cooke-lands-in-the-soup-3296735.html

Head The Wall

If any one tried to use ignorance as an excuse in court we would get laughed at and then convicted. This is exactly what this Judge is trying to do, the onus is on him to make himself fully aware of all his business dealings and how they may impinge on his day to day job.

This is Ireland though so it'll be swept under the carpet soon.

jmayo

Just to highlight that members of our judiciary like most of the other once overly respected sections of our society are at last being found out.

So much for the judiciary being above reproach.

A District Court judge has been found guilty of inducing a client to leave half his estate to her two children when she was a solicitor.

Heather Perrin, of Lambay Court, Malahide, Co Dublin, had denied including her children as major beneficiaries of the estate of Thomas Davis in 2009.

A jury found her guilty by unanimous verdict after three hours and 43 minutes of deliberation since yesterday.

She was released on bail but ordered to surrender her passport, and will be sentenced next Wednesday.

Mr Davis, who is in his 80s, had told the trial his will was not read over to him before he signed it in January 2009.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1120/district-court-heather-perrin-thomas-davis.html

I am not saying the stories are the same, but what I am drawing attention to is the fact that the judiciary need to be challenged just like anyone else because it is obvious that they can be as bent as anyone else.

There should be no sacred cows anymore in this country that are beyond questioning.

_Kaiser_

jmayo wrote: »

Just to highlight that members of our judiciary like most of the other once overly respected sections of our society are at last being found out.

So much for the judiciary being above reproach.



http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1120/district-court-heather-perrin-thomas-davis.html

I am not saying the stories are the same, but what I am drawing attention to is the fact that the judiciary need to be challenged just like anyone else because it is obvious that they can be as bent as anyone else.

There should be no sacred cows anymore in this country that are beyond questioning.

Mentioned this above as well.. what makes this even more ridiculous is the line on the Breaking News report

However, unless she resigns, she will remain a judge as she can only be removed from her post by a joint resolution adopted by both houses of the Oireachtas.

WTF?? :eek: So ordinary Joe has their record and career prospects tarnished for life, but our Judiciary are grand unless they decide to step down (no doubt retaining their pension plan too I suppose?!)

Yep, we really should be running a country alright! :rolleyes:

_Kaiser_

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Mentioned this above as well.. what makes this even more ridiculous is the line on the Breaking News report



WTF?? :eek: So ordinary Joe has their record and career prospects tarnished for life, but our Judiciary are grand unless they decide to step down (no doubt retaining their pension plan too I suppose?!)

Yep, we really should be running a country alright! :rolleyes:

I see since then that BN have expanded on the original report. Now it says:

She is the first judge in the history of the State to be convicted of a serious crime. She is currently on long-term sick leave and can only be removed from the bench by the Oireachtas.

So despite having been found guilty, AND getting to retain her job (and presumably benefits/pension etc), she's also getting sick leave?!

Can someone explain to me how being charged and convicted of a serious crime qualifies for "sick leave"??

I note also there's been no statement from Enda & Co on the matter yet - too busy it seems trying to take their foot out of mouth with the Savita Inquiry and telling us that of course Gilmore being Tanaiste has no bearing on his wife getting a plush new job next year! :mad:

I've said it here before and I'll say it again - the Irish aren't fit to govern themselves and I challenge ANYONE here to prove me wrong after what is (after all) merely the latest scandal(s) to emerge from the corridors of power.

Head The Wall

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

So despite having been found guilty, AND getting to retain her job (and presumably benefits/pension etc), she's also getting sick leave?!

Can someone explain to me how being charged and convicted of a serious crime qualifies for "sick leave"??

It's probably stress related sick leave, the stress of getting caught. It's the typical Irish approach of bury your head in the sand.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I've said it here before and I'll say it again - the Irish aren't fit to govern themselves and I challenge ANYONE here to prove me wrong after what is (after all) merely the latest scandal(s) to emerge from the corridors of power.

David McSavage has the very same opinion

jmayo

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I see since then that BN have expanded on the original report. Now it says:

So despite having been found guilty, AND getting to retain her job (and presumably benefits/pension etc), she's also getting sick leave?!

Can someone explain to me how being charged and convicted of a serious crime qualifies for "sick leave"??

When they brought out the amendment to cut judges pay why didn't they add in a clause or another amendment that would allow the immediate dismissal and removal of all benefits of judges found guilty of a crime or unethical behaviour.
We had already experience of a judge being caught with child porn on his personal computer which in any idiots eyes would make him unfit to practice as a judge.

Oh and for the anal amongst us I know he was not found guilty due to a technicality.
That still does not alter the fact he had child porn on his PC though and is thus uinfit to be a judge.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I note also there's been no statement from Enda & Co on the matter yet - too busy it seems trying to take their foot out of mouth with the Savita Inquiry and telling us that of course Gilmore being Tanaiste has no bearing on his wife getting a plush new job next year! :mad:

There should be an immediate vote as in today/tonight in the Dáil to have her removed.
No ifs or buts about the fooking thing.

Nah mrs gilmore's promotion has nothing to do with him being tanaiste, just like the purchase of her land in Galway village for new school had nothing to do with her being connected to VEC.
All purely circumstantial. :rolleyes:
Also wasn't his duaghter picked by Attorney General to work on case for the state ?
That family makes a fooking packet out of the state.
No wonder they wouldn't want Croke Park Agreement touched. :rolleyes:

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I've said it here before and I'll say it again - the Irish aren't fit to govern themselves and I challenge ANYONE here to prove me wrong after what is (after all) merely the latest scandal(s) to emerge from the corridors of power.

You see in the good old days all these type of things would have been swept under the carpet with of course only the insiders knowing the full details.