getting a different judge to hear you case where the judge might be biased

Carawaystick

Hypotethically,
If a person was to use parliamentary privilege to accuse a judge of bias, could the parliamentarian then use their own accusation to request a different judge hear their case as the original one might be biased/involved with the case too much?

Water John

Don't think your being very Hypothetical there?
Spit it out and don't be making your point out of the side of your mouth.

coylemj

She was convicted and fined €300 for the speeding offence, the case has been dealt with.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Water John

The judge showed his bias. Doesn't matter whether you agree politically with CD or not.
Most people have had car summons dealt with by their Solr. Often its even another Solr stepping in for them, general practice.
Issuing a bench warrant was simply throwing his weight as a judge around.

Little CuChulainn

Water John wrote: »

The judge showed his bias. Doesn't matter whether you agree politically with CD or not.
Most people have had car summons dealt with by their Solr. Often its even another Solr stepping in for them, general practice.
Issuing a bench warrant was simply throwing his weight as a judge around.

The issue was that she attended court but then left before her case was called. The judge found this to be disrespectful. There's no bias in it.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The issue was that she attended court but then left before her case was called. The judge found this to be disrespectful. There's no bias in it.

She was represented and the person instructed was in attendance it was a speeding fine for which I understand she was pleading.

The rule

"Where the accused, personally or by solicitor or counsel appears and admits the truth of the complaint made against him or her, the Court may if it sees no sufficient reason to the contrary, convict or make an order against him or her accordingly, but if the accused does not admit the truth of the complaint, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of rule 4, proceed to hear and determine the complaint. "

Water John

Thanks for that Pro Hoc.
So is the judge saying answering to him on a minor road traffic violation is more important for the defendant than her role as a national legislator?

We all know the absolute nonsensical waste of resources in the court system.
Lines of people, solrs and above all Gardai hanging around.

Pro Hoc Vice

Water John wrote: »

Thanks for that Pro Hoc.
So is the judge saying answering to him on a minor road traffic violation is more important for the defendant than her role as a national legislator?

We all know the absolute nonsensical waste of resources in the court system.
Lines of people, solrs and above all Gardai hanging around.

The courts system is in fact not a service that wastes money.

The budget of the courts service is some 110 million a year both current and capital expenditure. Stamp duty income is some 50-60 million leaving about a million a week to run every court in the country.

A typical District Court will deal with 100 to 200 cases a day as in the CD case it was at least 188, while it may be a pain for all involved the system remains cheap to run.

Little CuChulainn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

She was represented and the person instructed was in attendance it was a speeding fine for which I understand she was pleading.

The rule

"Where the accused, personally or by solicitor or counsel appears and admits the truth of the complaint made against him or her, the Court may if it sees no sufficient reason to the contrary, convict or make an order against him or her accordingly, but if the accused does not admit the truth of the complaint, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of rule 4, proceed to hear and determine the complaint. "

I'm aware of that. But the issue here is she appeared and then took it upon herself to leave the court before the judge dealt with the case. May not be against a particular rule but not surprising a judge would take it as a show of disrespect to the court.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm aware of that. But the issue here is she appeared and then took it upon herself to leave the court before the judge dealt with the case. May not be against a particular rule but not surprising a judge would take it as a show of disrespect to the court.

There is no disrespect she answered her summons she was pleading guilty she had instructed a person with a right of audience and there was no possibility of jail time. If CD had been arrested on foot of the BW same would quickly been vacated by the High Court. In my opinion the judge exceeded his authority and has brought the administration of justice in to disrepute.

The district court is a creature of statute it's power comes from statutory law (acts and SI's) the rules of court are one of the places a DJ gets his power he acted in my opinion based on what I have heard outside his power.

The High Court on the other hand has full and original jurisdiction and is not as bound as the District Court is. Also it must be remembered CD does get some serious constitutional protection coming from or going to the Dail the DJ may have caused a serious issue and created a serious problem for any Garda who that day acted on the BW.

Little CuChulainn

If someone appears in court on a summons are they not effectively in the custody of the court until remanded or dealt with?

cml387

If I were due to appear in court for a speeding charge I would certainly wait around until my case was heard and not wander off because I believed that whatever else I'm doing was more important (why was she appearing in court on a speeding charge anyway, wasn't there a previous setp missed somewhere?).
This idea that legislators are above the law is something Ms Daly would be the first to complain about were the boot on the other foot.

Carawaystick

My point was more the statement made under parliamentary privilege could be taken as contempt of court if uttered outside the Dáil. And could be seen as at least irking the judge, so there would be a reasonable perception of bias. So could deliberate use of privilege to attack a judge be used to avoid a judge in a case?


Article 13 of the constitution would overrule a DC arrrest warrant when a td was leaving a court to go to the Dáil anyway?

Pro Hoc Vice

cml387 wrote: »

If I were due to appear in court for a speeding charge I would certainly wait around until my case was heard and not wander off because I believed that whatever else I'm doing was more important (why was she appearing in court on a speeding charge anyway, wasn't there a previous setp missed somewhere?).
This idea that legislators are above the law is something Ms Daly would be the first to complain about were the boot on the other foot.

In minor cases (speeding is minor) when the person is pleading guilty, the law allows the court to deal with the matter if the accused is not present if as in this case the accused has instructed a solicitor.

In fact I have never seen a BW issued for a no show speeding matter.

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

My point was more the statement made under parliamentary privilege could be taken as contempt of court if uttered outside the Dáil. And could be seen as at least irking the judge, so there would be a reasonable perception of bias. So could deliberate use of privilege to attack a judge be used to avoid a judge in a case?


Article 13 of the constitution would overrule a DC arrrest warrant when a td was leaving a court to go to the Dáil anyway?

Yes a very valid application could be made in relation to the judge hearing any case of CD on the basis of perceived bias.

Little CuChulainn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

In minor cases (speeding is minor) when the person is pleading guilty, the law allows the court to deal with the matter if the accused is not present if as in this case the accused has instructed a solicitor.

In fact I have never seen a BW issued for a no show speeding matter.

Really? I have. Only on personal service of summons where the person was facing a ban.

Carawaystick wrote: »

My point was more the statement made under parliamentary privilege could be taken as contempt of court if uttered outside the Dáil. And could be seen as at least irking the judge, so there would be a reasonable perception of bias. So could deliberate use of privilege to attack a judge be used to avoid a judge in a case?

Certainly blurs the separation line between the powers. Wasn't too long ago there was a bit of an issue when a TD criticised sentancing in general if I recall.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Article 13 of the constitution would overrule a DC arrrest warrant when a td was leaving a court to go to the Dáil anyway?

Only if arrested on the way to the Dáil.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If someone appears in court on a summons are they not effectively in the custody of the court until remanded or dealt with?

Yes and in serious cases during the trial wher an accused is on bail a application would at lunch time be made to allow the accused to leave the courthouse to go for lunch but that would only be after the trial starts.

In a minor charge the person has by their solicitor attended to deal with the matter.

If CD had been arrested based on the BW it would have been an interesting High Court review been even more interesting if CD hade been going to or from the Dail.

The worst thing about this case is it seems to show the Justice systemis displaying a bias against CD.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Really? I have. Only on personal service of summons where the person was facing a ban.



Certainly blurs the separation line between the powers. Wasn't too long ago there was a bit of an issue when a TD criticised sentancing in general if I recall.



Only if arrested on the way to the Dáil.

I know of cases where a person was banned and there was a no show, a BW would of course issue if jail was a possibility. I have had to deal with no show bans for example no insurance by appealing and showing insurance.

http://www.thejournal.ie/parking-court-galway-disqualified-3050507-Oct2016/?utm_source=shortlink

Little CuChulainn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Yes and in serious cases during the trial wher an accused is on bail a application would at lunch time be made to allow the accused to leave the courthouse to go for lunch but that would only be after the trial starts.

In a minor charge the person has by their solicitor attended to deal with the matter.

If CD had been arrested based on the BW it would have been an interesting High Court review been even more interesting if CD hade been going to or from the Dail.

The worst thing about this case is it seems to show the Justice systemis displaying a bias against CD.

My point is that this isn't simply a matter of her sending someone in her place. This is her showing up and then leaving.

As to bias towards her, she isn't the first and won't be the last Judge Zaiden issues a bw for. I don't see where the bias is. It was her actions in leaving, which he found disrespectful, that drew his ire.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I know of cases where a person was banned and there was a no show, a BW would of course issue if jail was a possibility. I have had to deal with no show bans for example no insurance by appealing and showing insurance.

http://www.thejournal.ie/parking-court-galway-disqualified-3050507-Oct2016/?utm_source=shortlink

I don;t disagree. I've seen both happen. Depends on the judge on the day.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

My point is that this isn't simply a matter of her sending someone in her place. This is her showing up and then leaving.

As to bias towards her, she isn't the first and won't be the last Judge Zaiden issues a bw for. I don't see where the bias is. It was her actions in leaving, which he found disrespectful, that drew his ire.



I don;t disagree. I've seen both happen. Depends on the judge on the day.

I get what you are saying and if the judges form is to do as he did then fine. But 1 he took CD out of turn after she left and 2 I assume it's not the judges regular form as if it was the solicitor would have told CD. Not to leave.

A judge must be balanced in justice <<Mod deletion>>.

Carawaystick

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I get what you are saying and if the judges form is to do as he did then fine. But 1 he took CD out of turn after she left and 2 I assume it's not the judges regular form as if it was the solicitor would have told CD. Not to leave.

The IT reports today the judge took the td out of turn 2 times. Once on Oct 26, and once on Oct 13.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/clare-daly-speeding-case-timeline-of-court-appearances-1.2846098

Wouldn't art.13 prevent a court stopping her leaving a court to go to the Oireachtas or would it fall under breach of the peace?

"The members of each House of the Oireachtas shall, except in case of treason as defined in this Constitution, felony or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest in going to and returning from, and while within the precincts of, either House"