Irish judge stops extradition of Polish citizen...

bear1

... due to potential risk of an unfair trial in Poland.
Seems to be escaping people's attention but it's not going down too well with avid PiS supporters.
With the eu voicing their concerns over how the government in Poland has completely reformed their judiciary system and replaced judges with their own branded judges, taken over the main television station and the whole **** you Europe attitude, it seems it was only a matter of time before it trickled down further.
I fully understand the judges concerns of the person receiving a fair trial in his native country and that allowing the ecj rule on it - we are after all a union based on democracy and fairness.
Even the polish supreme court has criticized the government's reforms.
However, has a can of worms now been opened which has started to damage relations?
I'm here in Warsaw at the moment and already the racial slurs have started, some even calling for burning the flag on Saturday.
Thoughts?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/13/ireland-refuses-artur-celmer-extradition-poland-justice-reforms-ecj

Jim Bob Scratcher

We'll just have to start burning Polish flags if they do that :pac:

bear1

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

We'll just have to start burning Polish flags if they do that :pac:

You'd nearly hope that with a party called PiS... that the judge missed a golden opportunity to say "they must be taking the PiS".

*tumbleweed

Dr Brown

It's PC gone mad the drug dealing scumbag should be deported along with our so called Judge.

bear1

Dr Brown wrote: »

It's PC gone mad the drug dealing scumbag should be deported along with our so called Judge.

Except there is a thing called innocent until proven guilty.
If the person is likely not to receive a fair trial based on large changes to the judiciary system which has attracted complaints from the eu, the judge is correct to halt the extradition pending advise from the ecj.

Dr Brown

bear1 wrote: »

Except there is a thing called innocent until proven guilty.
If the person is likely not to receive a fair trial based on large changes to the judiciary system which has attracted complaints from the eu, the judge is correct to halt the extradition pending advise from the ecj.

It's not our problem. If hes dealing drugs he should be deported end of story.

The_Kew_Tour

Would Polish accept it if other way around? Like **** they would

bear1

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Would Polish accept it if other way around? Like **** they would

If it was an Irish citizen and our system had been compromised so heavily you mean?

bear1

Dr Brown wrote: »

It's not our problem. If hes dealing drugs he should be deported end of story.

"If" being the key word there.
If implies a potentiality not a confirmation of crimes.
And if he is in Ireland it is our problem as it's our taxes that pay for this and the extradition.

greencap

bear1 wrote: »

I'm here in Warsaw at the moment and already the racial slurs have started, some even calling for burning the flag on Saturday.
Thoughts?

Thats a bit ungrateful, isn't it.

Wonder did they buy the flag with money sent back from a relative working in a lidl in Arklow.

Lmklad

We live in a civilised society governed by rules. The EU has set the bar on what those rules are. The Polish government has changed their legal system so that the offices of justice and prosecutions is now the same. The Supreme Court there has stated this is an attack on the Constitution, the government has just removed half the Supreme Court judges.

Our High Court has a duty uphold the rule of Irish and EU law, regardless of our personal opinions of the alleged offender, that rule of law must be followed. The Judge is perfectly correct in referring this case to Europe.

splinter65

greencap wrote: »

Thats a bit ungrateful, isn't it.

Wonder did they buy the flag with money sent back from a relative working in a lidl in Arklow.

Why do you think Polish people need to grateful to Ireland ?

greencap

splinter65 wrote: »

Why do you think Polish people need to grateful to Ireland ?

They're all over our land of opportunity.
From sea to shining sea.

Lmklad

bear1 wrote: »

...
I'm here in Warsaw at the moment and already the racial slurs have started, some even calling for burning the flag on Saturday.
Thoughts?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/13/ireland-refuses-artur-celmer-extradition-poland-justice-reforms-ecj

Good luck burning flags as was recently shown, EU regs ensure they are fire resistant

splinter65

greencap wrote: »

They're all over our land of opportunity.
From sea to shining sea.

So?

Franz Von Peppercorn

The Irish judiciary isn’t fit for purpose. It isn’t up to this judge to decide whether the judicial system of another EU country is up to standards or not. Most European countries have totally different systems.

If the EU decides that Poland isn’t compliant then it can decide the penalty.

I mean I personally think most judges should be elected.

bear1

Lmklad wrote: »

Good luck burning flags as was recently shown, EU regs ensure they are fire resistant

They can go ahead and burn it, it's nothing compared to the burning of it north of the border
Funny enough the backlash both in the media and out and about are from those who support the party.
Just for balance, I've talked to quite a few who are delighted that the judge has pissed off the party.

greencap

splinter65 wrote: »

So?

so be grateful. no dunnes no money for flags. no flags no flag burning. no flag burning no fun.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The Polish reforms look like an American system to me. Judges there are elected by parliament or the electorate, or selected by the president subject to confirmation hearings.

bear1

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The Irish judiciary isn’t fit for purpose. It isn’t up to this judge to decide whether the judicial system of another EU country is up to standards or not. Most European countries have totally different systems.

If the EU decides that Poland isn’t compliant then it can decide the penalty.

I mean I personally think most judges should be elected.

Hence that's why she is referring it to the ecj.
And apparently she can decide that, just the same as a french/german/Estonian judge can refer judgement to a higher court.
The eu has already said that the polish system isn't compliant but this is the first ever case that will test it.
Judges should be elected by who?
In Poland they removed independently assigned judges and inserted judges which are connected to the party, do you see anything wrong with that?

Lmklad

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It isn’t up to this judge to decide whether the judicial system of another EU country is up to standards or not. Most European countries have totally different systems.

If the EU decides that Poland isn’t compliant then it can decide the penalty.

Except it is up to the High Court to make this decision. It’s one of their functions. The EU will decide if Poland isn’t compliant, that is the reason this Judge has referred this case to Europe.

splinter65

greencap wrote: »

so be grateful. no dunnes no money for flags. no flags no flag burning. no flag burning no fun.

Go to bed you’re drunk.

Dr Brown

bear1 wrote: »

In Poland they removed independently assigned judges and inserted judges which are connected to the party, do you see anything wrong with that?

Most of the Judges in Ireland are either members of FF or FG.

greencap

splinter65 wrote: »

Go to bed you’re drunk.

on zywiec. from my local corner shop. where pioter works.

Irish Guitarist

I couldn't care less about the politics of Poland. If he's guilty get him the fuck out of the country.

There's always some excuse as to why criminals don't get a proper sentence here. That's not a fair trial either.

end of the road

Dr Brown wrote: »

It's PC gone mad

nope.

Dr Brown wrote: »

the drug dealing scumbag should be deported along with our so called Judge.

nope. we can't deport our judge as she is irish. also, we can't deport this individual because the polish judicial system is currently under attack from what i understand.

Dr Brown wrote: »

It's not our problem. If hes dealing drugs he should be deported end of story.

it's our problem, he has to stay as he can't get a fair trial. end of story.

end of the road

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The Irish judiciary isn’t fit for purpose. It isn’t up to this judge to decide whether the judicial system of another EU country is up to standards or not. Most European countries have totally different systems.

If the EU decides that Poland isn’t compliant then it can decide the penalty.

I mean I personally think most judges should be elected.

in this case our judiciary is perfectly fine. if a justice system of another EU country is under attack then the judge can decide that it isn't up to standard and isn't fit for purpose and can decide not to deport somebody but refer the matter to europe.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I couldn't care less about the politics of Poland. If he's guilty get him the **** out of the country.

There's always some excuse as to why criminals don't get a proper sentence here. That's not a fair trial either.

currently he isn't guilty given he hasn't been found guilty. so therefore he can go nowhere until the EU says otherwise.

bear1

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I couldn't care less about the politics of Poland. If he's guilty get him the fuck out of the country.

There's always some excuse as to why criminals don't get a proper sentence here. That's not a fair trial either.

Again, if. He hasn't been proven guilty yet.
Why would you deport someone who, according to the law, is still innocent?

Franz Von Peppercorn

bear1 wrote: »

Hence that's why she is referring it to the ecj.
And apparently she can decide that, just the same as a french/german/Estonian judge can refer judgement to a higher court.
The eu has already said that the polish system isn't compliant but this is the first ever case that will test it.
Judges should be elected by who?
In Poland they removed independently assigned judges and inserted judges which are connected to the party, do you see anything wrong with that?

Impeachment should be a bit harder but as I said the US political classes or the electorate choose or ratify judges.

Elected by the district the judges serve.

Franz Von Peppercorn

bear1 wrote: »

Again, if. He hasn't been proven guilty yet.
Why would you deport someone who, according to the law, is still innocent?

That’s the way extradition works.

_Brian

bear1 wrote: »

... due to potential risk of an unfair trial in Poland.
Seems to be escaping people's attention but it's not going down too well with avid PiS supporters.
With the eu voicing their concerns over how the government in Poland has completely reformed their judiciary system and replaced judges with their own branded judges, taken over the main television station and the whole **** you Europe attitude, it seems it was only a matter of time before it trickled down further.
I fully understand the judges concerns of the person receiving a fair trial in his native country and that allowing the ecj rule on it - we are after all a union based on democracy and fairness.
Even the polish supreme court has criticized the government's reforms.
However, has a can of worms now been opened which has started to damage relations?
I'm here in Warsaw at the moment and already the racial slurs have started, some even calling for burning the flag on Saturday.
Thoughts?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/13/ireland-refuses-artur-celmer-extradition-poland-justice-reforms-ecj

The whole thing is built on a false premise that drug dealers are somehow entitled to a fair trial. If we got over this one simple misunderstanding I feel dealing in drugs would become less common indeed.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It isn’t up to this judge to decide whether the judicial system of another EU country is up to standards or not. Most European countries have totally different systems.

If the EU decides that Poland isn’t compliant then it can decide the penalty.

I mean I personally think most judges should be elected.

Oh, yes, we need elected judges and guns, loads more guns and a billionaire political leader from a reality tv show to be elected. Why do some people here always propose ideas from the most fúcked up society in the western world? Culturally, Poland and Hungary are both politically backward, authoritarian populist holes. Democracy has always been on very shaky foundations in both countries.

We are blessed to live in Ireland. Yes, we might be happier if we were in Finland, but we're still doing a lot better than any of the examples usually trotted out here.

PS: Of course, this Irish judge was not deciding any such thing; she was forwarding the issue on to the EU to decide it.

gmisk

_Brian wrote: »

The whole thing is built on a false premise that drug dealers are somehow entitled to a fair trial. If we got over this one simple misunderstanding I feel dealing in drugs would become less common indeed.

I think everyone should be entitled to a fair trial, it doesnt matter what he/she has allegedly done......is that not seen as a cornerstone of a decent society?
If found guilty come down on them like a tonne of bricks, but not everyone accused of a crime is guilty of it.

Lmklad

Lmklad wrote: »

Except it is up to the High Court to make this decision. It’s one of their functions. The EU will decide if Poland isn’t compliant, that is the reason this Judge has referred this case to Europe.

it is going t the ECJ is it not? that is independent from the EU courts.

_Brian wrote: »

The whole thing is built on a false premise that drug dealers are somehow entitled to a fair trial. If we got over this one simple misunderstanding I feel dealing in drugs would become less common indeed.

except they aren't legally a drug dealer until a court decides that they are. That is how the "Innocent until proven guilty" system works, thankfully.

bear1

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s the way extradition works.

Eh no, the country which is being requested to return a potential criminal has to be satisfied that the accused will receive a fair trial.
If the judge/state suspects a fair trial will not be given then they are in their rights to refuse extradition.
They can't simply extradite someone based solely on a request. It doesn't work that way at all.

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh, yes, we need elected judges and guns, loads more guns and a billionaire political leader from a reality tv show to be elected. Why do some people here always propose ideas from the most fúcked up society in the western world? Culturally, Poland and Hungary are both politically backward, authoritarian populist holes. Democracy has always been on very shaky foundations in both countries.

The US is ****ed up. There was a time however when it was a huge democratic experiment (long before the oligarchy it is today). And direct elections of officials was part of that. In parts of New England decisions are still made by town meetings. No council. In any case I was wondering why a system that prevails in the US and doesn’t thwart extradition to the US does so here.

Your anti polish and anti Hungarian hysteria does you no credit. That said I wonder where this hysteria was when the EU was being expanded. Back then comments like yours would have been dismissed as xenophobia. I am not sure why they aren’t now.

We are blessed to live in Ireland. Yes, we might be happier if we were in Finland, but we're still doing a lot better than any of the examples usually trotted out here.

PS: Of course, this Irish judge was not deciding any such thing; she was forwarding the issue on to the EU to decide it.

She has left a guy in limbo. Justice has been stalled. Presumably other countries continue to extradite to Poland and are waiting on an actual ruling from the EU regarding Poland. Simply put if the EU thinks that the Polish legal system is broken it needs to expel Poland.

Nobody can accuse the Irish judiciary of a surplus of intellect but this ruling means that, as long as this ruling isn’t overturned (and she seems to have bypassed the Supreme Court) and as long as Poland remains in the EU, Ireland is a sanctuary for every single Polish criminal. Anybody facing charges over there just needs a Ryanair ticket and they can come here and flee justice. The floodgates are now open.

This is a lone judge making her own law and basically ending a legal agreement between EU states (one constitutionally binding here).

It’s insane. Until the ECJ rules Ireland is a sanctuary for Polish criminals, if it rules in her favour all the EU is a sanctuary for Polish criminals and the only response is to expel it. Until now the EU was sabre rattling and probably would have just fined Poland.

Only solution is to send the ruling to the Supreme Court. I believe the president can do that.

Franz Von Peppercorn

bear1 wrote: »

Eh no, the country which is being requested to return a potential criminal has to be satisfied that the accused will receive a fair trial.
If the judge/state suspects a fair trial will not be given then they are in their rights to refuse extradition.
They can't simply extradite someone based solely on a request. It doesn't work that way at all.

I didn’t say it did. You were talking about innocence until proven guilty. Guilt does not have to proven for extradition.

Franz Von Peppercorn

end of the road wrote: »

in this case our judiciary is perfectly fine. if a justice system of another EU country is under attack then the judge can decide that it isn't up to standard and isn't fit for purpose and can decide not to deport somebody but refer the matter to europe.

Under attack by whom? Until the EU decides that the Poles are not a legalistic nation the Irish judiciary does not have the right to overturn the EU constitution which has very specific rules on extradition and which is constitutionally binding here.

currently he isn't guilty given he hasn't been found guilty. so therefore he can go nowhere until the EU says otherwise.

Another genius who thinks guilt has to be proven prior to extradition.

TheChizler

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Another genius who thinks guilt has to be proven prior to extradition.

Maybe you should be referring to the poster being quoted in the post you quoted?

Franz Von Peppercorn

TheChizler wrote: »

Maybe you should be referring to the poster being quoted in the post you quoted?

I did. At the top. Same guy. This wasn’t a multi quote.

bear1

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Under attack by whom? Until the EU decides that the Poles are not a legalistic nation the Irish judiciary does not have the right to overturn the EU constitution which has very specific rules on extradition and which is constitutionally binding here.



Another genius who thinks guilt has to be proven prior to extradition.

And now the sarcasm starts, your arguments are neither here nor there. The judge has a right to seek further clarification with the ECJ... these are part of the rules you seems to think you know.

bear1

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I didn’t say it did. You were talking about innocence until proven guilty. Guilt does not have to proven for extradition.

I mentioned this yes and?
You also can't extradite just like that which you seem to think you can.

circadian

_Brian wrote: »

The whole thing is built on a false premise that drug dealers are somehow entitled to a fair trial. If we got over this one simple misunderstanding I feel dealing in drugs would become less common indeed.

What if they aren't a drug dealer and they're erroneously on trial for it?

gordongekko

bear1 wrote: »

Again, if. He hasn't been proven guilty yet.
Why would you deport someone who, according to the law, is still innocent?

So that he can stand trial to prove his innocence or guilt

bear1

gordongekko wrote: »

So that he can stand trial to prove his innocence or guilt

But, criteria still has to be met before an extradition can be carried out.
If the judge sees that the person may potentially not have a fair trial then he/she can halt the extradition.

Franz Von Peppercorn

bear1 wrote: »

I mentioned this yes and?
You also can't extradite just like that which you seem to think you can.

We have an extradition agreement with all EU member states. The EU commission has not expelled Poland. That agreement still stands.

Her ludicrous lone wolf decision either forces the ECJ to accept that Poland is broadly legal - which presumably will be the outcome - or expel it. We can hardly have free movement and no extradition.

Since the result of the existing investigation was merely an invocation on article 7, which isn’t an expulsion but a fine, she clearly overstepped her bounds here. Poland hasn’t been expelled. As to bypassing the Supreme Court, what’s that about? And apparently her ruling will have knock on effects across the union.


I said earlier that extradition is constitutional. I’m not sure if it is, if it was part of those agreements we codified into the constitution or not. I do know it’s legaly binding however.

bear1

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

We have an agreement to do so with all EU member states. The EU commission has not expelled Poland.

That's true and with many more countries also but there still has to be due process.
The rules still state that a case can be referred higher, in this case the highest court, for review.
The judge didn't deny the request, she simply asked the ECJ to review it before she makes the final decision.
She is right to do so as is any judge within any EU jurisdiction that believes the person will not receive a fair trial.

Allinall

_Brian wrote: »

The whole thing is built on a false premise that drug dealers are somehow entitled to a fair trial. If we got over this one simple misunderstanding I feel dealing in drugs would become less common indeed.

How do we establish that someone is a drug dealer?

Oh yeah - by gathering evidence , building a case and having a (fair) trial .

VinLieger

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

We have an extradition agreement with all EU member states. The EU commission has not expelled Poland. That agreement still stands.

An agreement doesnt imply we adhere to their requests without going through the legal process which is what she is doing. There's a reason Ian Bailey has never been extradited to france and its due to the french not being able to prove their case to the legal requirements for him to be extradited, whether you agree with it or not that's the facts of the situation.

Robbo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

We have an extradition agreement with all EU member states. The EU commission has not expelled Poland. That agreement still stands.

Her ludicrous lone wolf decision either forces the ECJ to accept that Poland is broadly legal - which presumably will be the outcome - or expel it. We can hardly have free movement and no extradition.

Since the result of the existing investigation was merely an invocation on article 7, which isn’t an expulsion but a fine, she clearly overstepped her bounds here. Poland hasn’t been expelled. As to bypassing the Supreme Court, what’s that about? And apparently her ruling will have knock on effects across the union.


I said earlier that extradition is constitutional. I’m not sure if it is, if it was part of those agreements we codified into the constitution or not. I do know it’s legaly binding however.

Please stop talking about European Law, you clearly have no clue whatsoever.

Any Court in Ireland can make a reference to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU, there's 40 odd years of jurisprudence on this.

Grayson

Allinall wrote: »

How do we establish that someone is a drug dealer?

Oh yeah - by gathering evidence , building a case and having a (fair) trial .

I generally do it by buying drugs from them. And I'm happy when they do sell