Judges against new appointments process - great!!

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

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.

I have to agree. In my experience, legal professionals do not wear their intelligence lightly. You see it here as well. Certain posters, who seem otherwise sound, tend to infuse their posts with this cringey legalese.

Lads we get it. Ye are smart, but not exactly surgeons or doctors. You are about the same level as us chartered accountants in terms of cognitive challenges faced and real world impact.

suicide_circus

Mere mortals cannot begin to grasp the complexities of the legal craft.

The law is like astrology, it cannot be understood, only interpreted and only a select few privileged shamans have sufficient chakra to unlock its truths.

flutered

appear in court in person, plead guilty, if you do not have repesentation you are fined the usual plus the cost of what the legal repesentation would have cost

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Mere mortals cannot begin to grasp the complexities of the legal craft.

The law is like astrology, it cannot be understood, only interpreted and only a select few privileged shamans have sufficient chakra to unlock its truths.

Ah anyone can grasp it. Like any other job, it's just a mix of study and experience.

What is unusual about law is, because it is conducted in a public forum, because it reaches so far into people's lives, people assume they understand it already, that they have picked it up by osmosis, when any cursory scan of any legal thread here shows jaw dropping levels of ignorance. You don't get long threads about the latest trends in medecine or engineering, but if I camped on those threads and just said "engineers are all wrong, doctors are all wrong" I'm sure those who were qualified in those areas would get a little tired and dismissive.

Pat Mustard

Link:

PRESS RELEASE

Association of Judges of Ireland

26 June 2017

The Association of Judges of Ireland feels it necessary to express its concerns at a number of measures contained in the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill which is shortly to be debated in the Oireachtas. The Association is issuing this statement notwithstanding its reluctance to ever comment publicly on issues of controversy. It has decided to do so on this occasion only because of the depth of its concerns.

The Judiciary is not opposed to the introduction of changes in the system of appointments to the bench. In January 2014, as part of the public consultation process on the subject of judicial appointments initiated by the then Minister, Alan Shatter, the judiciary made a detailed submission which took as its starting point that the present system of judicial appointments was unsatisfactory and that there was a need for change. However, the proposals that will shortly go before the Oireachtas are seriously flawed. The proposals do not accord with international standards and will not serve to depoliticise the system of judicial appointments.

The rationale for a lay majority and a lay chairman has not been explained. It is hard to imagine any other walk of life in which the majority of those involved in an appointment process would be required to come from outside the ranks of those serving in the area to which the appointments are being made. In addition, although the Bill as initiated provides that three members of the Commission will be judges, no member of either the District Court or the Circuit Court, which together deal with the overwhelming majority of cases to come before the courts, is to be a member of the Commission.

The Office of Chief Justice is diminished by the requirement that he or she should be an Ordinary Member of the Commission but should be statutorily precluded from being its Chairman. The AJI is concerned that the present proposals may damage the judiciary as an institution. One effect of a flawed appointments system is that it may discourage suitable applicants from coming forward. If that happens, that is damaging to the judiciary as an institution and to the State as a whole.

Having regard to its reluctance to become involved in public controversy, other than issuing this statement, neither the AJI nor its officers will be commenting further.
ENDS

RDM_83 again

The Office of Chief Justice is diminished by the requirement that he or she should be an Ordinary Member of the Commission but should be statutorily precluded from being its Chairman.

Can someone explain why they think this particular bit matters at all? I get the other objections (not that I agree with them)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

McCrack

Martin Nolan

There is a recent District Court appointee who served as a garda.

Both very clued in and experienced lawyer and judge in the case of Nolan.

Ballstein

McCrack wrote: »

Martin Nolan

There is a recent District Court appointee who served as a garda.

Both very clued in and experienced lawyer and judge in the case of Nolan.

I think Martin Nolan gained notoriety through the infamous "garlic scam" case where he imposed a sentence of 6 years for tax evasion. His names is regularly thrown out here by a few of the legal posters when people say that judges are all from privileged backgrounds as if to say "look, he's one of yours and he's no great shakes". You can no longer study at the Kings Inn in the evening as far as I'm aware, so no more Gardai or working plebs can attend. You need a parent who can sponsor you through college, set you up in an apartment in Dublin while you devil and then continue to sponsor you while you ply your trade for meagre money in the circuit courts around the country. There will always be the odd "token" but the majority are from a rarified circle.

McCrack

If you say so

Ballstein

Ballstein wrote: »

I think Martin Nolan gained notoriety through the infamous "garlic scam" case where he imposed a sentence of 6 years for tax evasion. His names is regularly thrown out here by a few of the legal posters when people say that judges are all from privileged backgrounds as if to say "look, he's one of yours and he's no great shakes".

I have no opinion on him, much less say "he's no great shakes". The fact that his name appears here more than all the rest put together is not my criticism of him at all. The majority of Judges at District Court and Circuit Court level here in the SW are not from some rarified background. The District Judge in Kerry is from a farming background.

Ballstein

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no opinion on him, much less say "he's no great shakes". The fact that his name appears here more than all the rest put together is not my criticism of him at all. The majority of Judges at District Court and Circuit Court level here in the SW are not from some rarified background. The District Judge in Kerry is from a farming background.

When you say a farming background Conor, are we talking a few acres on the side of a hill or the Brutons type of farmer? As was mentioned in a previous post, the vast majority of people believe that the legal profession looks down on others in society and fiercely protects their privileged position their in. That in itself is not a crime, every guild or trade union protects it's members interests, but to consistently try and obstruct change is. The Troika were aghast when they started to look at the state of the nation, especially the legal costs. They prioritised it in their top 3 conditions of lending and yet after a fierce 5 year campaign the law library succeeded in derailing any meaningful change. So you can see why the vast majority of the citizens of this state simply don't believe the legal profession in this instance, you have cried wolf too many times and like the title of this thread states, most people are happy simply because the judiciary are not.

hullaballoo

Vapid, froth-mouthed populism at its finest.

Even the merest suggestion of critical thinking and you'd ask yourself, why does the current Chief Justice, who's days away from retirement, give a fiddlers how judges will be appointed in the future? Why would any current judge give a fiddlers? They've already been appointed so their self-interests are already sealed in and won't be affected in any way by a change in future appointments.

Here's why they care:

1. It isn't reform. The Government appoints judges, always have and always will unless there's a constitutional amendment. Therein lies the problem. It's a politicised process because politicians make the appointments. The JAAB has only ever advised the government on suitable appointments having regard to their expertise, personality (yes) and suitability to hold such office. Since its inception, no government in history, apart from this one, has ever appointed a judge who was not recommended by the JAAB. The new board or committee will have the same role but will be made up of people who by definition do not know what they are doing. Which ties into the next point.

2. It doesn't make any sense. What's the point of changing the people who advise the government on appointments? Has there ever been a problem with the appointees previously recommended? No, there hasn't. The problem, again, is that party political allies are invariably selected from the recommended appointees. Also, no one has explained why the Chair must be a layperson? Surely, the board/committee can elect its own Chair without having a statutory bar on electing the very person who's best placed to be the Chair? Mindless stuff. (I don't have much of a problem with the new board and its makeup myself, I just don't understand the point - I particularly don't understand the need to undermine the authority of the office of the Chief Justice.)

I know the legal profession has a reputation for being an old boys club. It used to be like that. It isn't like that anymore. I am from a poor background. I have no family in the business. Yet, I am a lawyer. The reality is that it's open to anyone now to qualify in either limb. It just isn't the closed shop people imagine but despite now being so open, it is struggling to shake the reputation that was for so long so true.

Shurimgreat

Most judges are appointed on merit.

However it only takes a couple of prominent appointments based on nepotism or political payback to render the whole thing dysfunctional in the eyes of the public.

Lawyers/judges are a closed shop and can't be trusted to independently appoint fellow judges.

Likewise politicians can't be trusted to fairly appoint judges.

Probably someone with judicial experience from outside Ireland should lead any board to appoint new judges, and do so based on interviewing candidates and studying their qualifications.

BrokenArrows

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Most judges are appointed on merit.

However it only takes a couple of prominent appointments based on nepotism or political payback to render the whole thing dysfunctional in the eyes of the public.

Lawyers/judges are a closed shop and can't be trusted to independently appoint fellow judges.

Likewise politicians can't be trusted to fairly appoint judges.

Probably someone with judicial experience from outside Ireland should lead any board to appoint new judges, and do so based on interviewing candidates and studying their qualifications.

There is no need for people outside of ireland to be involved.

They can have independent panel hire and fire judges.
Plenty of people here have said "but independent people are not qualified to assess whether x is suitable for the position".

Thats like saying that the board of directors is not qualified to hire the CEO. Or that any manager in any business is not qualified to hire staff unless they are qualified to do that persons job.

The world runs on people hiring others for jobs that they dont understand and couldn't do themselves. Hiring is based on the applicants past history, references, ability to demonstrate their skill and suitability at the interviews and the all important probation period.

This panel should also have the ability to review a Judges position if it is deemed necessary. Currently to fire a judge it requires a huge amount work.

Ballstein

Ballstein wrote: »

When you say a farming background Conor, are we talking a few acres on the side of a hill or the Brutons type of farmer? As was mentioned in a previous post, the vast majority of people believe that the legal profession looks down on others in society and fiercely protects their privileged position their in. That in itself is not a crime, every guild or trade union protects it's members interests, but to consistently try and obstruct change is. The Troika were aghast when they started to look at the state of the nation, especially the legal costs. They prioritised it in their top 3 conditions of lending and yet after a fierce 5 year campaign the law library succeeded in derailing any meaningful change. So you can see why the vast majority of the citizens of this state simply don't believe the legal profession in this instance, you have cried wolf too many times and like the title of this thread states, most people are happy simply because the judiciary are not.

Very much the side of a hill. Or actually a barren mountain.

Agree with some of what you say, there really is no logic or rationale behind much of the opposition to the Judge's position, just a "if they don't like it, we do". Which is a ridiculous position, real cutting off the nose stuff.

Shurimgreat

BrokenArrows wrote: »

There is no need for people outside of ireland to be involved.

They can have independent panel hire and fire judges.
Plenty of people here have said "but independent people are not qualified to assess whether x is suitable for the position".

Thats like saying that the board of directors is not qualified to hire the CEO. Or that any manager in any business is not qualified to hire staff unless they are qualified to do that persons job.

The world runs on people hiring others for jobs that they dont understand and couldn't do themselves. Hiring is based on the applicants past history, references, ability to demonstrate their skill and suitability at the interviews and the all important probation period.

This panel should also have the ability to review a Judges position if it is deemed necessary. Currently to fire a judge it requires a huge amount work.

Unfortunately history proves that if you want independent oversight and non-bias you have to go outside Ireland most of the time. Ireland is a very small country, where everyone knows everyone or knows someone who knows someone. Political favouritism, bias and nepotism are endemic in this country. It would be very hard to find an independent qualified person to choose judges.

The options are
1. pick a highly qualified legal person with the ability to decide on the best person for each judicial role. Again probably someone from the legal profession with many contacts, friends and family in the business.

2. pick an Irish person completely independent of the legal profession. The problem here is they would have little experience in judicial matters and the risk is they pick the wrong judge.

Again the solution is to pick a retired judge from outside Ireland to interview candidates, assess their merits and make recommendations to the government.