Judges against new appointments process - great!!

nice_guy80

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bill-would-have-serious-implications-for-irish-justice-judges-say-1.3133906

Great to see the judges coming out against this proposed new system for appointing them

If they are against it, then I'm all for it.

There have been some real puzzlers in recent years, and some terrible appointments. It should be de-politicised, but it's ridiculous having lay people appointing Judges, as ridiculous as say lay people deciding which Consultant should perform which operation. And bad Judges can have very serious consequences for all. We should want justice administered by those best able to do so, and no one knows the abilities of their colleagues as well as those in the Law Library.

nice_guy80

Deleted User wrote: »

There have been some real puzzlers in recent years, and some terrible appointments. It should be de-politicised, but it's ridiculous having lay people appointing Judges, as ridiculous as say lay people deciding which Consultant should perform which operation. And bad Judges can have very serious consequences for all. We should want justice administered by those best able to do so, and no one knows the abilities of their colleagues as well as those in the Law Library.

Ted: obviously we should involve the lay community, but keep them at a distance....

Bishop: how much of a distance??

Ted: Couple of miles??

...And Justice

nice_guy80 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bill-would-have-serious-implications-for-irish-justice-judges-say-1.3133906

Great to see the judges coming out against this proposed new system for appointing them

If they are against it, then I'm all for it.

Veradker is a tyrant, the sooner FF pull the plug on this inflated Donald trump wannabe the better. Yeah I spelled his name wrong, I don't care....

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

There have been some real puzzlers in recent years, and some terrible appointments. It should be de-politicised, but it's ridiculous having lay people appointing Judges, as ridiculous as say lay people deciding which Consultant should perform which operation. And bad Judges can have very serious consequences for all. We should want justice administered by those best able to do so, and no one knows the abilities of their colleagues as well as those in the Law Library.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIpoPjBUds

Kristopherus

Deleted User wrote: »

There have been some real puzzlers in recent years, and some terrible appointments. It should be de-politicised, but it's ridiculous having lay people appointing Judges, as ridiculous as say lay people deciding which Consultant should perform which operation. And bad Judges can have very serious consequences for all. We should want justice administered by those best able to do so, and no one knows the abilities of their colleagues as well as those in the Law Library.

And who serves on juries????..............

McCrack

The unemployed, OAPs, housewifes and cranks

Roger Hassenforder

Kristopherus wrote: »

And who serves on juries????..............

Anyone that can't come up with a reason not to be there

Kristopherus

Kristopherus wrote: »

And who serves on juries????..............

Actually criminal trials with juries are the epitome of why good judges are needed, jury direction is a very specialised area with Counsel ready to pounce on any wrong word as grounds for an appeal, Judges have to take meticulous notes of the evidence and have seen great battles between good Judges like Carroll Moran challenging a barristers quote of a witness who may have given evidence weeks before in a lengthy case. There is no way a lay person would have the foggiest idea of who might be well qualified to do that.

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

There have been some real puzzlers in recent years, and some terrible appointments. It should be de-politicised, but it's ridiculous having lay people appointing Judges, as ridiculous as say lay people deciding which Consultant should perform which operation. And bad Judges can have very serious consequences for all. We should want justice administered by those best able to do so, and no one knows the abilities of their colleagues as well as those in the Law Library.

There have been numerous instances of poor judgments so perhaps it's time that the old boys club be told that appointments have to be made by people who live in the real world.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

There have been numerous instances of poor judgments so perhaps it's time that the old boys club be told that appointments have to be made by people who live in the real world.

The Judge who is the target of most threads and criticism here was a former Garda. Is that living in the real world?

Pat Mustard

Most members of the public don't tend to have regular contact with the judiciary so they only know about their own personal experiences. Because of their limited contact, they don't tend to have an accurate appreciation of the damage that can be done by even one awful judge.

If people did, they wouldn't be applauding this decision that will have serious consequences for those members of the public that end up at the mercy of merciless or incompetent judges. Such judges are few but their impact is widespread.

Bringing in a law where laymen will select judges makes no sense. They will have no way of knowing who is good, bad or dangerous. Some people are compete nutters who shouldn't be allowed in charge of a goldfish, not to mind a courtroom. Now we could make judges of such individuals.

It is makes no sense to expect that laymen could choose judges competently. Giving them the power to choose judges is a serious error in judgement.

Reminds me of a joke. When I die I want to go like grandad: peacefully, in my sleep. Not screaming like everyone else in his bus.

nice_guy80

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Most members of the public don't tend to have regular contact with the judiciary so they only know about their own personal experiences. Because of their limited contact, they don't tend to have an accurate appreciation of the damage that can be done by even one awful judge.

If people did, they wouldn't be applauding this decision that will have serious consequences for those members of the public that end up at the mercy of merciless or incompetent judges. Such judges are few but their impact is widespread.

Bringing in a law where laymen will select judges makes no sense. They will have no way of knowing who is good, bad or dangerous. Some people are compete nutters who shouldn't be allowed in charge of a goldfish, not to mind a courtroom. Now we could make judges of such individuals.

It is makes no sense to expect that laymen could choose judges competently. Giving them the power to choose judges is a serious error in judgement.

Reminds me of a joke. When I die I want to go like grandad: peacefully, in my sleep. Not screaming like everyone else in his bus.

laymen basically means non legal people, doesn't it? people from business? education? law research?
they'll independently assess the applicant judges' credentials and experience
doesn't mean they are going to be a bunch of lads on the dole sitting around deciding on the judges
wait, judges might actually have to interview for their job!!!
Imagine that!!!

no more 'old boys legal eagles club'.
"I know him from my Kings Hospital days, as did my dad knew his dad" etc

Pat Mustard

nice_guy80 wrote: »

they'll independently assess the applicant judges' credentials and experience

All of the candidates are lawyers.

How will they assess the experience and competence of one lawyer candidate over another?

Jim Bob Scratcher

I'm not paying a euro to look at that ****e

nice_guy80

nice_guy80 wrote: »

laymen basically means non legal people, doesn't it? people from business? education? law research?
they'll independently assess the applicant judges' credentials and experience
doesn't mean they are going to be a bunch of lads on the dole sitting around deciding on the judges
wait, judges might actually have to interview for their job!!!
Imagine that!!!

no more 'old boys legal eagles club'.
"I know him from my Kings Hospital days, as did my dad knew his dad" etc

No more?

Have you seen the slew of Judges appointed in recent years to the District and Circuit Courts based, not on some old boys club, but on political affiliations? He was involved in so and so's election campaign, he was the Solicitor for this TD or that? I wish there was an old boys club, instead of some of the shockers on the bench these days, every time I visit a a bar room now they seem to be talking about some latest gaffe in hushed tones. Of course they'll be appealed, clogging up the system even more, ironically resulting in higher fees for lawyers and more expense for litigants, because bad judges are a boon to the profession. But not the individual seeking redress.

nice_guy80

Deleted User wrote: »

No more?

Have you seen the slew of Judges appointed in recent years to the District and Circuit Courts based, not on some old boys club, but on political affiliations? He was involved in so and so's election campaign, he was the Solicitor for this TD or that? I wish there was an old boys club, instead of some of the shockers on the bench these days, every time I visit a a bar room now they seem to be talking about some latest gaffe in hushed tones. Of course they'll be appealed, clogging up the system even more, ironically resulting in higher fees for lawyers and more expense for litigants, because bad judges are a boon to the profession. But not the individual seeking redress.

the whole legal professsion in Ireland is a self regulated closed shop with the Kings Inn, Law Society, Bar Council etc
they set their own fees!!
its a cartel

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/legal-profession-waged-four-year-battle-against-reform-bill-1.2532389

The power of the legal professions is made clear in Government records detailing the force and extent of their four-year lobbying offensive against measures to overhaul the sector.
Files from the Department of Justice show how the Bar Council, the professional body for barristers, received and rejected draft amendments to legislation before they had been presented to Cabinet.

nice_guy80

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the whole legal professsion in Ireland is a self regulated closed shop with the Kings Inn, Law Society, Bar Council etc
they set their own fees!!
its a cartel

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/legal-profession-waged-four-year-battle-against-reform-bill-1.2532389

The power of the legal professions is made clear in Government records detailing the force and extent of their four-year lobbying offensive against measures to overhaul the sector.
Files from the Department of Justice show how the Bar Council, the professional body for barristers, received and rejected draft amendments to legislation before they had been presented to Cabinet.

What has that to do with the appointment of Judges?

It seems like this is a "I hate the legal profession, oh goodie, this annoys Judges" thread.

Do you think, for example, that the children in a family law case deserve a bad Judge who had no experience whatsoever in family law?

F34

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What has that to do with the appointment of Judges?

It seems like this is a "I hate the legal profession, oh goodie, this annoys Judges" thread.

Do you think, for example, that the children in a family law case deserve a bad Judge who had no experience whatsoever in family law?

It has everything to do with it, any change to the legal profession or system is met with disdain from the profession. One of our bailout conditions was reform of the legal sector and the fees they charge guess which condition was brushed under the carpet.

There will be representatives from the legal profession on the panel so there will still be input from the legal profession as to who will be selected.

I see you have defaulted to won't somebody think of the children rather than address the points made.

nice_guy80

Deleted User wrote: »

What has that to do with the appointment of Judges?

It seems like this is a "I hate the legal profession, oh goodie, this annoys Judges" thread.

Do you think, for example, that the children in a family law case deserve a bad Judge who had no experience whatsoever in family law?

the children will still be in front of a competent judge
selected by an almost independent panel
whats the issue

I've no problem with judges or the legal profession
they just shouldn't be appointing themselves

Ballstein

Deleted User wrote: »

What has that to do with the appointment of Judges?

It seems like this is a "I hate the legal profession, oh goodie, this annoys Judges" thread.

Do you think, for example, that the children in a family law case deserve a bad Judge who had no experience whatsoever in family law?

The way your talking it would appear that there has never been an incompetent judge in the country. Once again the Law library is circling the wagons to prevent any modernisation in the profession, doing their best to avoid any scrutiny from the outside. How could a mere engineer or professor possibly sit in judgement of our learned friends and assess their qualifications. It would appear that the act of sitting on a bench for the day making extensive notes is now akin to self levitating such is its complexity. It's a difficult job, requires a good intellect, the ability to process large amounts of information and an ability to remain detached, however, all of these qualities can be measured and a good selection board could be relied upon to make proper appointments. They may make the odd bad one, but no more so than the current system does.

ohnonotgmail

Ballstein wrote: »

The way your talking it would appear that there has never been an incompetent judge in the country. Once again the Law library is circling the wagons to prevent any modernisation in the profession, doing their best to avoid any scrutiny from the outside. How could a mere engineer or professor possibly sit in judgement of our learned friends and assess their qualifications. It would appear that the act of sitting on a bench for the day making extensive notes is now akin to self levitating such is its complexity. It's a difficult job, requires a good intellect, the ability to process large amounts of information and an ability to remain detached, however, all of these qualities can be measured and a good selection board could be relied upon to make proper appointments. They may make the odd bad one, but no more so than the current system does.

If it is so straightforward then please tell us how a lay person can assess a persons legal qualifications? what criteria would they use? It would be like asking me to assess a doctors medical qualifications.

Yourself isit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What has that to do with the appointment of Judges?

It seems like this is a "I hate the legal profession, oh goodie, this annoys Judges" thread.

Do you think, for example, that the children in a family law case deserve a bad Judge who had no experience whatsoever in family law?

Why would this new system cause that? You say the situation is politicised already.

Yourself isit

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If it is so straightforward then please tell us how a lay person can assess a persons legal qualifications? what criteria would they use? It would be like asking me to assess a doctors medical qualifications.

Democracy couldnt run if we believed that lay people couldn't judge professions.

Nabber

I thought sentences in Oreland were lenient? Every time I read a thread about some guy committed a crime and had 30 previous convictions, the most 'thanked' post is the one criticising the judges any their lenient sentences.

Can any system self regulate itself? I don't think it can.

I am all for lay people involved. Where I work at the moment, each team developing a product has a minimum of one person on the team wholes sole function is to ask WHY.

Group think is a powerful thing. Always include a non group member in the process.

ohnonotgmail

Yourself isit wrote: »

Democracy couldnt run if we believed that lay people couldn't judge professions.

how about answering the question i asked?

Ballstein

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If it is so straightforward then please tell us how a lay person can assess a persons legal qualifications? what criteria would they use? It would be like asking me to assess a doctors medical qualifications.

As far as I'm aware, there will be solicitors and barristers on the board, it just has to be a lay person majority. They can assess the qualifications of any candidates and then the whole group can make an appointment. Once again it's deliberate distraction tactics to try and derail change.

ohnonotgmail

Ballstein wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, there will be solicitors and barristers on the board, it just has to be a lay person majority. They can assess the qualifications of any candidates and then the whole group can make an appointment. Once again it's deliberate distraction tactics to try and derail change.

so if it will be the legal people assessing the qualifications of candidates what are the lay people adding to the process?

Pat Mustard

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the children will still be in front of a competent judge
selected by an almost independent panel
whats the issue

Again:

Pat Mustard wrote: »

All of the candidates are lawyers.

How will they assess the experience and competence of one lawyer candidate over another?

CrankyHaus

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Again:

So presumably you think that the laypersons on the Policing Authority are unable to adequately assess candidates for senior Garda positions and other Gardaí should select them?

ohnonotgmail

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So presumably you think that the laypersons on the Policing Authority are unable to adequately assess candidates for senior Garda positions and other Gardaí should select them?

Yeah the last two garda commissioners have done a fantastic job

Ballstein

Ballstein wrote: »

How could a mere engineer or professor possibly sit in judgement of our learned friends and assess their qualifications.

What would an Engineer or a Professor of, say, Geography know about suitability of a candidate to sit in, say criminal or family cases?

Riskymove

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If it is so straightforward then please tell us how a lay person can assess a persons legal qualifications? what criteria would they use? It would be like asking me to assess a doctors medical qualifications.

Reminds me of the old saying
"What do you call the person who finishes last in their class at Medical School?"

Doctors and Lawyers are either qualified or not - that is easy to assess

The criteria on who would be the best candidate for being a Judge would be quite different than just qualifications.

The issue really is about balance on the Board making recommendations - there should be legal people in the Board to assess certain criteria and then others who can assess people through general assessment/interview

ohnonotgmail

Riskymove wrote: »

Reminds me of the old saying
"What do you call the person who finishes last in their class at Medical School?"

Doctors and Lawyers are either qualified or not - that is easy to assess

The criteria on who would be the best candidate for being a Judge would be quite different than just qualifications.

The issue really is about balance on the Board making recommendations - there should be legal people in the Board to assess certain criteria and then others who can assess people through general assessment/interview

but what is this criteria that only lay people can judge?

Riskymove

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but what is this criteria that only lay people can judge?

I haven't thought about that in detail but there are plenty of competencies used in a wide range of recruitment that lay people could assess through Interview

Candidates could show their experience and level of ability in communciation, general management of work, commitment to development etc etc

The lay people can also consider criteria that are common at present such as ensuring diversity in appointments


The legal people on the Board can assess legal experience and issues related

CrankyHaus

Deleted User wrote: »

What would an Engineer or a Professor of, say, Geography know about suitability of a candidate to sit in, say criminal or family cases?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but what is this criteria that only lay people can judge?

I can't tell if you're being serious or just winding people up.
How do you think senior pilots are selected? Or any other important position?
Yes, the opinion of colleagues is important but it isn't the only consideration.

It's widely accepted that proper appointment procedures require the involvement of laypeople. They don't just show up on the day and toss a coin to decide. They study submissions regarding the qualifications and record of candidates and discuss the candidate's merits with the other selectors, including members of the profession.

The involvemnt of laypeople prevents influence networks from taking over the process. Surely you can see how this is a good thing for judicial appointments given the widespread, and often merited, perception of excessive nepotism in the legal sector?

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What would an Engineer or a Professor of, say, Geography know about suitability of a candidate to sit in, say criminal or family cases?

They could read the criteria for any potential candidate and compare against a host of c.v's,it's not rocket science.i'd say the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers would add a bit of well needed realism into the make believe world of the law profession.

Pat Mustard

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So presumably you think that the laypersons on the Policing Authority are unable to adequately assess candidates for senior Garda positions and other Gardahould select them?

Presume whatever you like. Nothing to do with me.

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

They could read the criteria for any potential candidate and compare against a host of c.v's,it's not rocket science.i'd say the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers would add a bit of well needed realism into the make believe world of the law profession.

What's make believe about the law? It regulates people's daily lives, cases can have profound implications for individuals. Bad judges just increase the frustration felt by individuals in the system.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Do we not give lay people a vote to elect the public representative who run this country, is selecting judges a greater or more onerous responsibility than that?

Pat Mustard

smurgen wrote: »

pragmatic sensibilities of engineers would add a bit of well needed realism into the make believe world of the law profession.

• Appeals against jail sentences.
• Civil actions.
• Advising as to costs in litigation.
• Applications for orders for divorce/judicial separation/child access/guardianship/maintenance.
• Leases for business premises.
• Establishing title to land.
• Mortgages.
• Wills

All make believe matters; easily disposed of by the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers.

v638sg7k1a92bx

What is the argument against the proposed changes, maintain the status quo so that the politicians who are elected by lay people continue to appoint judges as opposed to allowing the layman select judges themselves? Are politicians not laymen???

I don't see how the status quo is any better than what is being proposed.

smurgen

Pat Mustard wrote: »

• Appeals against jail sentences.
• Civil actions.
• Advising as to costs in litigation.
• Applications for orders for divorce/judicial separation/child access/guardianship/maintenance.
• Leases for business premises.
• Establishing title to land.
• Mortgages.
• Wills

All make believe matters; easily disposed of by the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers.

You're dead right sure engineers only built the international space station,747's,the combustion engine,super coliders etc etc.how could they ever come to terms with insurmountable issues such as jail sentence appeals?!they should just leave the intellectual stuff to the law folk!

Pat Mustard

smurgen wrote: »

You're dead right sure engineers only built the international space station,747's,the combustion engine,super coliders etc etc.how could they ever come to terms with insurmountable issues such as jail sentence appeals?!they should just leave the intellectual stuff to the law folk!

Sure engineers are polymaths who are learned in all subjects. There is a local engineer here who has pliers and a drill which he uses to carry out dental work from time to time. No big deal to a man who could construct the international space station.

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's make believe about the law? It regulates people's daily lives, cases can have profound implications for individuals. Bad judges just increase the frustration felt by individuals in the system.

The sentences are make believe.there's no consistency.

Pat Mustard

smurgen wrote: »

The sentences are make believe.there's no consistency.

Sure it's all make believe. All that legal stuff. If you can't put your hand on it, it doesn't exist, right?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

• Appeals against jail sentences.
• Civil actions.
• Advising as to costs in litigation.
• Applications for orders for divorce/judicial separation/child access/guardianship/maintenance.
• Leases for business premises.
• Establishing title to land.
• Mortgages.
• Wills

All make believe matters; easily disposed of by the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers.

smurgen

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Sure it's all make believe. All that legal stuff. If you can't put your hand on it, it doesn't exist, right?

No problem for engineers!sure they can wrap their heads around quantum physics and all.

smurgen

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Sure engineers are polymaths who are learned in all subjects. There is a local engineer here who has pliers and a drill which he uses to carry out dental work from time to time. No big deal to a man who could construct the international space station.

What i'm getting at is the arrogance of people in legal circles.any time the cash cow is threatened we're told we don't understand the issues at hand.i have never come across people as condescending as legal folk.my girlfriend is a medical device engineer.she's more or less a genius as are her friends.they downplay their intelligence if anything.i find the opposite is true of solicitors and barristers.

smurgen

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Sure engineers are polymaths who are learned in all subjects. There is a local engineer here who has pliers and a drill which he uses to carry out dental work from time to time. No big deal to a man who could construct the international space station.

What i'm getting at is the arrogance of people in legal circles.any time the cash cow is threatened we're told we don't understand the issues at hand.i have never come across people as condescending as legal folk.my girlfriend is a medical device engineer.she's more or less a genius as are her friends.they downplay their intelligence if anything.i find the opposite is true of solicitors and barristers.

Pat Mustard

smurgen wrote: »

No problem for engineers!sure they can wrap their heads around quantum physics and all.

Of course, because calculating loads to be borne by structures and predicting speeds of objects relative to other objects is the same work as is carried out by lawyers. Massive crossover of skills, training and experience there. Simple as doing the crossword, really.

smurgen

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Of course, because calculating loads to be borne by structures and predicting speeds of objects relative to other objects is the same work as is carried out by lawyers. Massive crossover of skills, training and experience there. Simple as doing the crossword, really.

It shows the ability to grasp complex ideas,engage in critical thinking and above all else display massive amounts of raw brain power.they mightn't be able to ****e talk as much as yerselves alright tho which seems to be a big part of working in law.i'll give ya that.