District Judge convicted

Our man in Havana

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

Is that her judging over? Can she be removed from office?

Paulw

No, AFAIK she can't be removed as a judge unless a motion is passed in both the Seanad and Oireachtas.

Otherwise, she is still a judge, even after conviction.

Crazy legislation in this country.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Paulw wrote: »

Crazy legislation in this country.

The provision protecting judges from being removed from office is actually in our constitution, and for good reason. Were it not there it would be far too easy for whichever party is in government to influence the courts.

Our man in Havana

The downside of that is that convicted judges cannot be removed from office.

I suppose the president of the district court can stop her hearing cases?

Paulw

Anaya Ugly Reformer wrote: »

The provision protecting judges from being removed from office is actually in our constitution, and for good reason. Were it not there it would be far too easy for whichever party is in government to influence the courts.

But surely, on conviction of a crime, a judge should be made to step down or be fired?

Yes, it's good that the govt (in theory) can't influence the courts, but there still should be ways to have a judge removed, upon conviction by their peers.

drunkmonkey

I presume what she done carries a Jail sentence. Would anyone who was convicted by her have a right to a re-trial as she was found to be corrupt and may not have given a fair sentence?

NoQuarter

Yes she can be removed from office. Only Supreme and High Court Judges have constitutional protection and even then, they can be removed for misbehaviour which this surely would be.

Article 35
1. The judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and all other Courts established in pursuance of Article 34 hereof shall be appointed by the President.
2. All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law.
3. No judge shall be eligible to be a member of either House of the Oireachtas or to hold any other office or position of emolument.
4. 1° A judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann calling for his removal.
2° The Taoiseach shall duly notify the President of any such resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann, and shall send him a copy of every such resolution certified by the Chairman of the House of the Oireachtas by which it shall have been passed.
3° Upon receipt of such notification and of copies of such resolutions, the President shall forthwith, by an order under his hand and Seal, remove from office the judge to whom they relate.
5. The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.

Victor

Some how come the case of Judge Curtin was going before the Oireachtas?

Our man in Havana

Because there is no mechanism to remove the judges of the lower courts.

Manach

.. but on the other hand, it takes one to know one hence the Judge will be able to gain valuable "life experience" from her term. Perhaps all judges might then benefit from such ... ?

amen

But surely, on conviction of a crime, a judge should be made to step down or be fired

Say the government attempted to convict every judge who didn't give favourable judgements of minor traffic offenses to remove those judges ?

A judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann calling for his removal

The above section states "his removal". Could a female judge attempt to fight their removal on the basis that the above line only refers to males?

Reloc8

Victor wrote: »

Some how come the case of Judge Curtin was going before the Oireachtas?

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Because there is no mechanism to remove the judges of the lower courts.

Art. 35.4.1 as per above re High & Supreme Court judges.

Section 20 Courts of Justice (District Court) Act 1946 applies to District Judges.

(20.—Justices shall hold office by the same tenure as the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court.)

Section 39 Courts of Justice Act 1924 applies to Circuit Court Judges.

(39.—The Circuit Judges shall hold office by the same tenure as the Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court.)

The material effect of those sections is to extend the procedures under 35.4.1 of the Constitution as it applies to Supreme & High Court Judges to District & Circuit Court Judges (there is also a procedure to enquire into the health of a DJ pursuant to s. 21 of the 1946 Act).

In the meantime she will simply not be assigned to sit, pending the outcome of impeachment proceedings, that is if she does not resign.

amen wrote: »

The above section states "his removal". Could a female judge attempt to fight their removal on the basis that the above line only refers to males?

No. By the same logic only the President could only ever be a man and only men would have property and other rights.

coylemj

amen wrote: »

The above section states "his removal". Could a female judge attempt to fight their removal on the basis that the above line only refers to males?

If such a challenge were to succeed, then by extension the Constitution's reference to the President using only the male pronoun......

If a member of either House of the Oireachtas be elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in that House.

could be taken to imply that a woman couldn't be elected President.

Carawaystick

Is there a simple way to change that '46 act to insert something like a conviction will remove the judge from office except in high/supreme court?

Could the bar be set lower like a settlement with the revenue would remove them?

Our man in Havana

It could not be made retroactive so it could only apply to cases that arise after the change in the law.

Reloc8

I might have a think about whether I think it could be retrospective. I suspect it could.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is there a simple way to change that '46 act to insert something like a conviction will remove the judge from office except in high/supreme court?

Could the bar be set lower like a settlement with the revenue would remove them?

Yep very simple - its a statute which extends the constitutional protection to District Judges and Circuit Court Judges. The Oireachtas can amend it in the way that any statute can be amended.

newmug

Anaya Ugly Reformer wrote: »

The provision protecting judges from being removed from office is actually in our constitution, and for good reason. Were it not there it would be far too easy for whichever party is in government to influence the courts.

So, you cant remove judges incase that might allow the govt. to influence the courts, but there's nothing to stop a govt. freely appointing "friendly" judges, ala Noel Dempseys brother?

Our man in Havana

Yes, that is pretty much it. It is the same the world over. Governments appoint judges sympathetic to their viewpoints.

newmug

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Yes, that is pretty much it. It is the same the world over. Governments appoint judges sympathetic to their viewpoints.

The law is so messed up.

Procrastastudy

newmug wrote: »

The law is so messed up.

Suggestions on a better system most welcome - Monarchy seems out.

Reloc8

I vote for anarchy...wait...

dublin daz

what happened the other charges of theft and false accounting?

newmug

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Suggestions on a better system most welcome - Monarchy seems out.

Here's a novel idea - appoint neutral judges. Not pro govt. ones, and remove the law that proven corrupt ones can't be sacked. There's my suggestion.

Procrastastudy

newmug wrote: »

Here's a novel idea - appoint neutral judges. Not pro govt. ones, and remove the law that proven corrupt ones can't be sacked. There's my suggestion.

So if someone has shown themselves to be an excellent Judge but has a political leaning they should not be selected for higher office? One could argue that no political affiliation is a political leaning in itself. All this is moot I don't see a particularly political judiciary in Ireland anyway.

Even if it was there is an argument to be made that it is no bad thing. The people vote in the politicians they want, the politicians appoint Judges which lean in the same direction ergo we get judges the people want.

Making it easier to sack Judges, reduce their pay etc. does exactly the opposite of what you want - a neutral judiciary. They start to become political and fall in-line with the Government to avoid pay cuts / removal from office.

newmug

Procrastastudy wrote: »

So if someone has shown themselves to be an excellent Judge but has a political leaning they should not be selected for higher office?

Under absolutely no circumstances should a judges political leaning influence their legal judgements. They should carry out their job neutrally. Would a FF supporting surgeon allow a FG patient die?

The point being made was that you cant sack judges, because, say a FF govt. could sack all the FG judges. That implies that political leaning is a decider in the appointment of the job in the first place - which, of course, it shouldn't be.

But then, OMIH confirmed that indeed its commonplace for govt.s to appoint "friendly" judges. Create the law, create the loophole.

IMO, political affiliation should never be a deciding factor in the appointment of any job, unless its specific to your affiliated party. eg a FFer should get the job of being FF spokesman.

Ergo, whatever political leanings one has, they should be left at home when you put on your working clothes. And if they're not, that should be counted as corruption. And you should be able to SACK corrupt employees in any job, including the judiciary.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

One could argue that no political affiliation is a political leaning in itself. All this is moot I don't see a particularly political judiciary in Ireland anyway.

Noel Dempsey's brother? Co-morbid nepotism and cronyism?

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Even if it was there is an argument to be made that it is no bad thing. The people vote in the politicians they want, the politicians appoint Judges which lean in the same direction ergo we get judges the people want.

Making it easier to sack Judges, reduce their pay etc. does exactly the opposite of what you want - a neutral judiciary. They start to become political and fall in-line with the Government to avoid pay cuts / removal from office.

People NEVER vote in the politicans they want. We get a mish-mash of votes, with only a partially satisfied electorate at the outcome. And to have the governance of the electoral majority (as opposed to the majotity of the populace) foisted upon the larger, but various un-unified electoral minority facets of the population is bad enough, but then to have "justice" delivered with a political flavour aswell? No way!

You are saying that threatening a judges position will make them political, while I am saying being political should threaten their position. Whats the solution? Their job should be performance based, like anyone elses, and while executing it, THEY SHOULD BE POLITICALLY NEUTRAL!

Procrastastudy

I dont really understand what you're going on about. How can a judge be performance based? Number of cases carried out per year? Words per minute?

As for political leaning, what's a political leaning and what's a independently held opinion? Should Denham CJ be at home rather than in the Supreme Court? Should every Constitutional Article and piece of legislation be given a literal meaning only?

Ken.

Fück politics. If a judge commits a crime it seriously effects their standing. The law needs to be changed so that a judge convicted of serious crimes is removed immediately from their position and their pension cut off. If a garda was convicted of a crime we wouldn't expect them to be a garda for very long.

Procrastastudy

Is Dermot Dempsey causing some-sort of falling of the sky from within the District Court. I thought the DC was were they stuck all experienced lawyers willing to take the massive pay cut.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

ken wrote: »

The law needs to be changed so that a judge convicted of serious crimes is removed immediately from their position and their pension cut off. If a garda was convicted of a crime we wouldn't expect them to be a garda for very long.

What's a serious crime? Who decides this?
There's plenty of gardai out there with convictions as far as I'm aware.

newmug

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I dont really understand what you're going on about. How can a judge be performance based? Number of cases carried out per year? Words per minute?

Soundness of decisions made, and conduct becoming of a legal professional.

Lets go back to the surgeon example. If a surgeon had to remove a bad kidney from a patient, but he took out the good one instead, whether maliciously or through incompetance, that would not be a sound performance.

Also, if the surgeon broke the law by exceeding the speed limit, he may be excused by the fact that he was attending an emergency. While he would still have to suffer the legal penalty, his conduct would be becoming of a surgeon, and his job should not be professionally affected by his mishap with the law. Whereas if a judge broke the speed limit while on his way to sentence people for dangerous driving, while he should be treated equally to the surgeon under the law and also have to suffer the legal penalty, he would be contravening conduct becoming of a legal practitoner. Therefore his mishap with the law should have a professional impact on his job.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

As for political leaning, what's a political leaning and what's a independently held opinion? Should Denham CJ be at home rather than in the Supreme Court? Should every Constitutional Article and piece of legislation be given a literal meaning only?

Independantly held opinion is independantly held opinion. Political parties are usually formed around a group of similar independantly held opinions, with the intention of furthering the opinions in unison. However, cronyism is when that political opinion or party is abused, or used inappropriately or unfairly, to further the selfish interests of one group of people, while discriminating against another, including when based on the excuse of differing opinion. There are times when differing opinion is fine to be used in a discriminatory fasion, but judging legal cases is not one of them.

For example, lets say "The Script" are coming to play the O2. 10,000 people hear about this. 9,900 are "meh", but 100 love The Script! The 100 form together based on their love of The Script (independantly held similar opinion forming together) and they start a fan club (a political party). The Script give a discounted bar as a reward to thank their fans! Fair enough!

Around the same time, Bruno Mars will be playing in Vicar Street. The same 10,000 people hear about this. This time, 9,900 other people are "meh", and a different set of 100 people form a fan club and get rewards! Fair enough! The discriminating factor here is that both fan clubs like different bands. No problem there.

However, cronyism starts when the fan clubs start attending each others events, just for the cheap drink. Or when they allow non-fans to avail of it, just because they have some connection with the person. THATS abuse if the system. The bands will find out, cut the discounts, and everybody loses.

I dont know enough in detail about Denham CJ or every piece of legislation in the constitution to make a qualified comment, but I will say this: IMO, all laws and legislation should be in laymans language, with examples.

Ken.

Anaya Ugly Reformer wrote: »

What's a serious crime? Who decides this?
There's plenty of gardai out there with convictions as far as I'm aware.

Same as a solicitor. Any conviction in the circuit court or higher.

Chuck Stone

When a person who works within the legal apparatus of the state uses it to enrich themselves or for some other corrupt goal then they should be sacked on conviction and barred from ever practising in the field again; I'm fairly sure that something analogous would happen if a social worker was convicted of abusing a child.

Peregrinus

But Perrin's crime is unconnected to her "work within the legal apparatus of the state"; it was something she did before her appointment as a judge, while a solicitor in private practice.

I agree, of course, that it shows her to be unfit to be a judge, not because of abuse of office but because of what it says about her character, and so her fitness for office.

But is this necessarily true of every crime of which someone might be convicted? Suppose, for example, a judge was convicted for dangerous driving, or manslaughter (by negligence)?

Either we have an inflexible rule that any conviction results in automatic removal from the bench, which could obviously work unfairly, or someone has to make a judgment, after th event an considering all the facts, as to whether dismissal is warranted. And given the need to ensure the independence of the judiciary this is obviously a difficult line to draw.

mathepac

coylemj wrote: »

If such a challenge were to succeed, then by extension the Constitution's reference to the President using only the male pronoun......If a member of either House of the Oireachtas be elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in that House.

could be taken to imply that a woman couldn't be elected President.

Christ, it gets worse and worse...

Peregrinus wrote: »

But Perrin's crime is unconnected to her "work within the legal apparatus of the state"; it was something she did before her appointment as a judge, while a solicitor in private practice.....

A solicitor is a sworn officer of the court and thus does "work within the legal apparatus of the state".

Reloc8

I don't really know what all the fuss is about.

She's been convicted and will be sentenced next week.

She's not sitting as a Judge and hasn't for some considerable period of time.

She will clearly be removed from office (I don't believe she will be allowed to resign).

And meanwhile the constitutional protection of Judges' tenure is an important thing which should be maintained.

'SHE SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY THE LAW IS RIDICULOUS ARRRRRGLEBARGLEBARGLEBARGLE'

No, she shouldn't. She should be effectively suspended, which she is, and then removed, following the constitutional procedure, which in this case could not be more straightforward.

Alan_P

Reloc8 wrote: »

I don't really know what all the fuss is about.

She's been convicted and will be sentenced next week.

She's not sitting as a Judge and hasn't for some considerable period of time.

She will clearly be removed from office (I don't believe she will be allowed to resign).

And meanwhile the constitutional protection of Judges' tenure is an important thing which should be maintained.

'SHE SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY THE LAW IS RIDICULOUS ARRRRRGLEBARGLEBARGLEBARGLE'

No, she shouldn't. She should be effectively suspended, which she is, and then removed, following the constitutional procedure, which in this case could not be more straightforward.

Indeed, I agree with this. There is a mechanism to remove judges from office :- that mechanism is laborious and cumbersome, as it should be.
And I agree there's very little evidence that the Irish judiciary is significantly politically biased, irrespective of their method of appointment.

Two questions :-
Can she legally be stopped from resigning ?

Re the Curtin affair :- I remember wondering at the time,could the Oireachtas legally have shortcircuited the whole impeachment proceedings by just repealing the act that made his impeachment necessary ? For example, could they have just given the CJ the power to investigate and dismiss District and Circuit judges ?

Peregrinus

Alan_P wrote: »

Two questions :-
Can she legally be stopped from resigning ?

No. And unless she enjoys public humiliation she will resign before she is impeached. And she will have plenty of opportunity to do so, since impeachment is very slow.

Alan_P wrote: »

Re the Curtin affair :- I remember wondering at the time,could the Oireachtas legally have shortcircuited the whole impeachment proceedings by just repealing the act that made his impeachment necessary ? For example, could they have just given the CJ the power to investigate and dismiss District and Circuit judges ?

They could, but why would they? There's a constitutionally-endorsed policy of giving judges a fair degree of protection from removal, and we share this with most of the rest of the common-law world, and there are good historical and political reasons for it. When this legislation was adopted people knew that it would mean that it would be cumbersome to remove judges even when the case for removing them was very clear. Why, then, would you suddenly abandon all this when you find it is cumbersome to remove a judge even when the case for removal is very clear?

Procrastastudy

@newmug - I'm sorry I'm completely lost. A conversation surrounding a DC judge with a skeleton in the closet is now involving a surgeon, a kidney FF, FG, the O2 and the Script.

Could you please simplify what you are trying to say for me please?

Another point is that Judges do not make the law. That's not a 100% true statement there are some subtle changes that the High Court and Supreme Court can make and the SC could in theory cause issues via Re Art 26 if the president was so inclined to be in cahoots and they wanted to block a piece of legislation.

I've reread what you wrote - I'm going to be blunt. I think you're blowing a lot of of proportion and have some unrealistic expectations of how a legal system can work. The law and the language used is relatively easy to understand and requires very little study to master - A lot less than say being able to take apart the engine of a Ford Focus. That said I do understand your desire to see a neutral judiciary - we pretty much have that in all honesty.

I don;t really understand what you are trying to say with the Dempsey thing - he was 30 years a solicitor - that seems to qualify him. DC Judges are paid roughly what a large Tescos manager gets and have about as mush political clout as one. Perhaps there are other examples I have to admit my level of engagement with politics is very low.

EDIT

A couple of other things to point out. I'm sure its not lost on people that, rightly or wrongly Curtain was not convicted of anything which makes his situation slightly different. The very fact that this happens so infrequently in why the system has never been refined - it's simply not been needed - so have erred on the side of protecting the independence of the courts. That has an unfortunate knock on effect of not being able to get rid of people at the drop of a hat but I'm persoanlly willing to live with that minor flaw.

amen

If a member of either House of the Oireachtas be elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in that House.

or could you argue that only a male TD has to give up their seat in Oireachtas if elected President but a female would not.

Procrastastudy

amen wrote: »

or could you argue that only a male TD has to give up their seat in Oireachtas if elected President but a female would not.

I think the Interpretation Acts cover this - it's certainly dealt with somewhere.