Brid Smith comments on High Court Judge

28064212

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He described the salaries, agreed between unions and employers as "high rates of remuneration" and suggested it wasn't competitive enough.

That is not what he said:

https://beta.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/22265e8d-1c0f-42df-b040-e6c7bc338281/2020_IEHC_303.pdf/pdf wrote:

Whereas these outcomes may well be laudable or desirable, the statutory language used is too imprecise to provide any meaningful guidance to the Labour Court. A decision to impose minimum terms and conditions of employment upon an entire economic sector necessitates making difficult policy choices. This is because the consequences of making a sectoral employment order are so far-reaching, and the interests of the principal stakeholders, namely, the employers, workers and consumers; are not necessarily aligned. The fixing of high rates of renumeration might well be welcomed by workers, but may limit competition, and thus adversely affect consumers.

That is quite clearly a general statement, not specific to electricians or €18 an hour, and in the context of the legality of the legislation. Bríd Smith's attack is disgraceful, and frankly, I doubt whether she's even read the judgement, much less understood the legal nuances

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

That is not what he said:That is quite clearly a general statement, not specific to electricians or €18 an hour

No, it is not a statement about 18 euro per hour, of course not. But neither is it a general statement. You have to read that paragraph in context.

In the paragraph where the Court relates its concern about high rates of remuneration, it is referencing the s.16(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 2015, I won't quote it all here.

That passage permits the Labour Court to make recommendations to the Minister with regard to an SEO, once the Labour Court is satisfied that to do so would promote a harmonious relationship between workers and employers, and ensure fair and sustainable rates of pay. (my emphasis)

The judge here is stepping in and refusing to permit employers and employees from establishing minimum rates of pay because, it seems, he doesn't trust them against paying employees too high a wage.

I think that is outrageous, particularly so when coming from a man on such an obscene salary by way of the public purse.

He is literally stepping in to save employers from themselves in a dramatic, extremely interventionist fashion.

In fact, it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court decides that he was even permitted to venture into this question, because the judge himself admits that he is breaking long-established precedent in doing so.

Podge_irl

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, it is not a statement about 18 euro per hour, of course not. But neither is it a general statement. You have to read that paragraph in context.

The SEO for electrical contractors set minimum pay at 23.49Eur so not sure where this 18 is coming from. It is utterly immaterial to the decision of the High Court however. The context of that paragraph is in reference to the constitutional issues around SEOs in general. It is absolutely a general statement.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The judge here is stepping in and refusing to permit employers and employees from establishing minimum rates of pay because, it seems, he doesn't trust them against paying employees too high a wage.

I think that is outrageous, particularly so when coming from a man on such an obscene salary by way of the public purse.

He is literally stepping in to save employers from themselves in a dramatic, extremely interventionist fashion.

This is grossly incorrect.

The judge is stopping the Minister from establishing a legal requirement of minimum rates of pay for an employment sector through secondary legislation. This is for various reasons set out in the judgement, none of them having anything to do with the rate of pay itself. This is not an agreement between employers and employees.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

The SEO for electrical contractors set minimum pay at 23.49Eur so not sure where this 18 is coming from.

I think 18 euro was an average figure, I can check it, but it's not particularly relevant as the findings on the procedural aspect of the case are not really arguable. These guys aren't getting their SEO, no matter what happens the constitutional aspect of the case.

This is grossly incorrect.

The judge is stopping the Minister from establishing a legal requirement of minimum rates of pay for an employment sector through secondary legislation. This is for various reasons set out in the judgement, none of them having anything to do with the rate of pay itself. This is not an agreement between employers and employees.

I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. I know it's not to do with the rate of pay itself. I have read the constitutional aspect of the ruling in detail, have you?

When I refer to the judge's unusually interventionist stance, I'm talking about his decision to break with a long-standing precedent of "judicial restraint", using a fairly bewildering rationale of consent and costs, in an attempt to strike down the entire Industrial Relations process that provides for SEOs.

This guy elaborates, at some length, that his desire to do so is associated with a fear that employees might be paid too well, even though the legislation requires a harmonious accord between employers and employees. He literally doesn't seem to trust workers and their bosses to reach a sustainable settlement before the Labour Court, and refuses to afford the Labour Court the constitutional presumption, to which it is entitled, that its activities will uphold fair procedures.

Just one more thing about that that's crossed my mind again, there's nothing in the judgment where the Court has signaled any intention to delay a declaration of unconstitutionality, despite the havoc this is causing for up to 13,000 workers; and probably more workers across other sectors. That's not great, is it?

Podge_irl

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. I know it's not to do with the rate of pay itself. I have read the constitutional aspect of the ruling in detail, have you?

When I refer to the judge's unusually interventionist stance, I'm talking about his decision to break with a long-standing precedent of "judicial restraint", using a fairly bewildering rationale of consent and costs, in an attempt to strike down the entire Industrial Relations process that provides for SEOs.

This guy elaborates, at some length, that his desire to do so is associated with a fear that employees might be paid too well, even though the legislation requires a harmonious accord between employers and employees. He literally doesn't seem to trust workers and their bosses to reach a sustainable settlement before the Labour Court, and refuses to afford the Labour Court the constitutional presumption, to which it is entitled, that its activities will uphold fair procedures.

You have claimed he stopped employers and employees from agreeing minimum rates of pay - this is not correct.
You have claimed he is swooping in to save employers from themselves - this is not correct.
You are framing the entire case as one of the High Court intervening in a labour agreement about rates of pay - this is not correct.
I am happy to correct this if I have somehow misunderstood that this is what you were saying, but it seems pretty clear to me.

The judicial restraint refers to not considering constitutional issues if not required for a judgement - which in this case they are not as the SEO would be invalid regardless. However, the judgement explains quite clearly why it does go on to consider the constitutional issue - Both parties wanted it to, the constitutional arguments had been made and it would have ended up back before the court anyway. Why delay the inevitable and at extra cost for all involved? Beyond that there is nothing remotely "unusually interventionist" about the ruling.

The constitutional ruling does not care whether the SEO sets the limit at 1 cent above the minimum wage or 500Eur. All talk in it of "high rates of remuneration" are used in the abstract and have nothing whatsoever to do with the particulars of this case. In short, the ruling just says the primary legislation is not fit for purpose as it is too vague to allow for secondary legislation.

Thankfully, legislators can fix that by amending the legislation, rather than resorting to asinine and misguided attacks on the Court itself.

Hubertj

Podge_irl wrote: »

You have claimed he stopped employers and employees from agreeing minimum rates of pay - this is not correct.
You have claimed he is swooping in to save employers from themselves - this is not correct.
You are framing the entire case as one of the High Court intervening in a labour agreement about rates of pay - this is not correct.
I am happy to correct this if I have somehow misunderstood that this is what you were saying, but it seems pretty clear to me.

The judicial restraint refers to not considering constitutional issues if not required for a judgement - which in this case they are not as the SEO would be invalid regardless. However, the judgement explains quite clearly why it does go on to consider the constitutional issue - Both parties wanted it to, the constitutional arguments had been made and it would have ended up back before the court anyway. Why delay the inevitable and at extra cost for all involved? Beyond that there is nothing remotely "unusually interventionist" about the ruling.

The constitutional ruling does not care whether the SEO sets the limit at 1 cent above the minimum wage or 500Eur. All talk in it of "high rates of remuneration" are used in the abstract and have nothing whatsoever to do with the particulars of this case. In short, the ruling just says the primary legislation is not fit for purpose as it is too vague to allow for secondary legislation.

Thankfully, legislators can fix that by amending the legislation, rather than resorting to asinine and misguided attacks on the Court itself.

I think the overall point here is that socialists will distort the actual ruling to suit their own agenda and create a false sense that court rulings are based on class handed down by the elite. It suits them and a lot of people who vote for the likes of smith will swallow it. Facts, unfortunately, don’t matter.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

You have claimed he stopped employers and employees from agreeing minimum rates of pay - this is not correct.
You have claimed he is swooping in to save employers from themselves - this is not correct.
You are framing the entire case as one of the High Court intervening in a labour agreement about rates of pay - this is not correct.
I am happy to correct this if I have somehow misunderstood that this is what you were saying, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Read the previous posts. I said he is deliberately and needlessly preventing employers and employees from reaching a harmonious, sustainable accord before the Labour Court, at least in terms of an SEO.

He could have stopped in his judgment in finding that the SEO in question was void. As I said at the outset, parts of the judgment are very fair and that, unfortunately, is one of them.

He then went further, breaking with all precedent (this he says himself), and deemed the whole setup to be unconstitutional. Not only that, but the grounds on which he did it seem odd (concerns about high wages). I don't know if we want to get into that last bit or not. It's probably sufficient to say that he has gone way further than the long-settled law of the land would have allowed.

However, the judgement explains quite clearly why it does go on to consider the constitutional issue - Both parties wanted it to, the constitutional arguments had been made and it would have ended up back before the court anyway. Why delay the inevitable and at extra cost for all involved? Beyond that there is nothing remotely "unusually interventionist" about the ruling.

But you know why the restraint is an important part of the constitution exists, right?

It exists as a mark of respect to the Oireachtas, that their work is presumed to be constitutionally sound.

Two parties, even if one is a Minister, cannot privately agree to disrupt the presumption of constitutionality of the Oireachtas. A Minister does not speak for the Oireachtas, this is an important aspect of the Separation of Powers and the judge doesn't seem to have considered this at all. If he did consider it, he omitted to state it. I think that's a problem, and I suspect it will be, that's merely a hunch.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

You have claimed he stopped employers and employees from agreeing minimum rates of pay - this is not correct.
You have claimed he is swooping in to save employers from themselves - this is not correct.
You are framing the entire case as one of the High Court intervening in a labour agreement about rates of pay - this is not correct.
I am happy to correct this if I have somehow misunderstood that this is what you were saying, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Read the previous posts. I said he is deliberately and needlessly preventing employers and employees from reaching a harmonious, sustainable accord before the Labour Court, at least in terms of an SEO.

He could have stopped in his judgment in finding that the SEO in question was void. As I said at the outset, parts of the judgment are very fair and that, unfortunately, is one of them.

He then went further, breaking with all precedent (this he says himself), and deemed the whole setup to be unconstitutional. Not only that, but the grounds on which he did it seem odd (concerns about high wages). I don't know if we want to get into that last bit or not. It's probably sufficient to say that he has gone way further than the long-settled law of the land would have allowed.

However, the judgement explains quite clearly why it does go on to consider the constitutional issue - Both parties wanted it to, the constitutional arguments had been made and it would have ended up back before the court anyway. Why delay the inevitable and at extra cost for all involved? Beyond that there is nothing remotely "unusually interventionist" about the ruling.

But you know why the restraint exists, right?

It exists as a mark of respect to the Oireachtas, that their work is presumed to be constitutionally sound.

Two parties, even if one is a Minister, cannot privately agree to disrupt the presumption of constitutionality of Acts of the Oireachtas. A Minister does not speak for the Oireachtas, this is an important aspect of the Separation of Powers and the judge doesn't seem to have considered this at all. If he did consider it, he omitted to state it. I think that's a problem, and I suspect it will be, that's merely a hunch.

Podge_irl

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Read the previous posts. I said he is deliberately and needlessly preventing employers and employees from reaching a harmonious, sustainable accord before the Labour Court, at least in terms of an SEO.

He could have stopped in his judgment in finding that the SEO in question was void. As I said at the outset, parts of the judgment are very fair and that, unfortunately, is one of them.

He then went further, breaking with all precedent (this he says himself), and deemed the whole setup to be unconstitutional. Not only that, but the grounds on which he did it seem odd (concerns about high wages). I don't know if we want to get into that last bit or not. It's probably sufficient to say that he has gone way further than the long-settled law of the land would have allowed.

I do want to get into that last bit, because what you have said is not correct. He has ruled it as unconstitutional because the primary legislation does not provide sufficient clarity to pass secondary legislation. The ability to pass secondary legislation is quite restrictive and needs clear and unambiguous guidance from the primary legislation and the primary legislation fails in that regard. He makes absolutely no argument about the constitutionality of the law being somehow related to "high wages". The reference to rates of remuneration is merely an example to highlight that while e.g. high rates of remuneration would be appreciated by workers, it may not be so by consumers. The primary legislation does not provide sufficient clarity or direction on how to approach this.

He categorically did not rule the legislation unconstitutional because of "concerns about high wages".


He is also doing nothing to prevent employers and employees from reaching any kind of agreement before the Labour Court. He is restricting a Minister from dictating by fiat minimum rates of pay for various, somewhat poorly defined, employment sectors. This is a massive distinction. An SEO is not an agreement between employers and employees.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But you know why the restraint exists, right?

It exists as a mark of respect to the Oireachtas, that their work is presumed to be constitutionally sound.

Two parties, even if one is a Minister, cannot privately agree to disrupt the presumption of constitutionality of Acts of the Oireachtas. A Minister does not speak for the Oireachtas, this is an important aspect of the Separation of Powers and the judge doesn't seem to have considered this at all. If he did consider it, he omitted to state it. I think that's a problem, and I suspect it will be, that's merely a hunch.

Yes. Personally I have no issue with his logic, but even if it is ruled in any appeal that he had no grounds for making the judgement, that does not suddenly make the legislation constitutional. The constitutional issue will inevitably end up having to be decided once an otherwise valid SEO is brought into effect and there is no reason to suspect it would be ruled differently.

Randy Archer

PeadarCo wrote: »

So again you don't like the result but don't know and or understand the reasoning. And just because a law has been passed it does not mean its automatically constitutional. Its the courts job to decide that. Its Brid Murphys job as a TD to pass legislation. However the Dail or any TD does not get to decide if a law ultimately is in line with the constitution. That's the job of the Supreme Court. This case is not the first time the Supreme Court has overruled the Dail and hopefully it won't be the last. As the Supreme Court particularly acts as a check on the Dail and more importantly the government of the day it is very important that they are not only independent but seen to independent. Brid Murphy has brought this into question.

The wages of everyone who have been impacted and the judges that made the decision are irrelevant. The judges didn't rule on wages specifically. That's not to say you can't have a discussion on them but she has used the judges wages to bring them into question saying they are beholden to some mythical "elite" and therefore can't be trusted because they earn X salary. As I have said if she really wants to help the people impacted she could start by doing her job and not by acting like a wanabe dictator.

Brid Murphy is challenging the rule of law in a small way. Look a Trump and any dictator. One of the biggest steps to a dictatorship is undermining the independence of the judiciary to ensure its does not hold members of Parliament to account. Now remember Brid Murphy is a TD. She is challenging the right of the court to overrule her on the basis that it doesn't support her ideology. So the AJI was perfectly correct. Look at Trump and the damage he did, look at the damage dictators do full stop.

It's important that the rule of law is upheld. That starts with the people who make the law TD's like Brid Murphy. If TD's make laws that are bad worded or go against the constitution it's important that they accept the authority of the courts to overrule them.

Actually , when law is passed, there is a very strong Presumption that it adheres to the Constitution . The courts are slow to strike provisions down as Unconstitutional, and find methods to avoid dealing with such issue ie look at the facts and whether ordinary law of contract Or criminal law etc is relevant - so it’s not far off being automatically constitutional

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

I do want to get into that last bit

Ok, but it's going to be very longwinded and tedious, and is now straying from politics to Legal Discussion; so apologies to anyone reading this, if there's anyone left.

He has ruled it as unconstitutional because the primary legislation does not provide sufficient clarity to pass secondary legislation.

It does.

The judgment says that the statutory language is too imprecise, despite the guidelines given at s.16(4) and elsewhere in the primary legislation where it lists five very specific guiding principles of Government policy, laid down by the Oireachtas.

It was clearly the intention of the Oireachtas in s.16(4) that, although sometimes these principles might come into conflict, this conflict is to be settled by way of an harmonious accord as between the employers and the employees within the sector so as to

(a) promote harmonious relations between workers and
employers and assist in the avoidance of industrial unrest in the
economic sector concerned, and

(b) [...] ensure fair and sustainable rates of remuneration,

The Labour Court would be acting beyond its powers if it were to permit an acrimonious and/ or unsustainable obligation on parties to which they did not consent. It is clearly the policy of the Oireachtas, therefore, to recognise that market forces (as between employers and employees) will determine the outcome of deliberations.

These market forces are a crucial safeguard, yet this safeguard does not involve the abdication of responsibility by the Minister, since it is she who must then review the recommendation of the Labour Court with respect to the detailed Chapter 3 requirements.

In Part 3 of the Judgment, the Court says that the vagueness attached to the above is so vague as to render judicial review impossible. What he somehow forgets, is that he has just completed a successful judicial review of the process earlier in his judgment, finding against the Applicants. If it were impossible to judicially review the Application, he ought never have proceeded with Parts 1 and 2 of the Judgment, the Judicial Review.

This is a minor point, but the language that is objected to, such as "fair and sustainable" and "substantial" is described as hopelessly vague. Yet, these are exactly the kinds of terms that are used throughout primary and secondary legislation and crucially, which the courts themselves encounter, and pass judgement on, in perhaps the majority of cases. Nevertheless, some of the statutory provisions mentioned above give the necessary context to such language.

It would be impossible for any secondary legislation to meaningfully curtail the deliberations of the Labour Court without this -somewhat loose- terminology. The alternative would be, for example, to set specific and quantifiable limits on pay adjustments in secondary legislation, which for obvious reasons is impossible in the context of the far-reaching work of the Labour Court in making its recommendations.



The reason I didn't want to get into that long and probably pointless essay, is because I think it's moot anyway. The judge had no business in straying into the constitutionality of the legislation to begin with. He didn't have grounds to drag the presumption of constutionality into his court once he had finished with the Judicial Review -- a Review he now claims is constitionally impossible. Very strange logic.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

One post deleted, along with a reply quoting that post.

Please read the forum charter:

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.

In short, be nice.

Podge_irl

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The reason I didn't want to get into that long and probably pointless essay, is because I think it's moot anyway. The judge had no business in straying into the constitutionality of the legislation to begin with. He didn't have grounds to drag the presumption of constutionality into his court once he had finished with the Judicial Review -- a Review he now claims is constitionally impossible. Very strange logic.

I appreciate the reply, but its also clear even from your explanation that his judgement was not remotely based on the concern about high wages and it is disingenuous to describe it as such. That is what I take issue with, not a general comment on the soundness of the actual judgement. I would claim that the elements he conducted a judicial review on are not the ones that he has constitutional issues with as it never got that far.

Smith's issue is not with encroachment on judicial restraint - she just didn't like the outcome and went off on some personal attacks on the judge.

28064212

marieholmfan wrote: »

Deleted post.

Brid Smith didn't say anything in the ball park of what was in the post you quoted. She just went off on an ad hominem attack because she didn't like the judgement. It is possible for the judgement to be wrong, and Smith to be in the wrong. The former is up for debate (and that's what the appeals process is for). The latter is not.

All that the post you quoted confirms is that Smith isn't even up to the level of debate of an internet forum, let alone the national legislature

James Brown

28064212 wrote: »

Brid Smith didn't say anything in the ball park of what was in the post you quoted. She just went off on an ad hominem attack because she didn't like the judgement. It is possible for the judgement to be wrong, and Smith to be in the wrong. The former is up for debate (and that's what the appeals process is for). The latter is not.

All that the post you quoted confirms is that Smith isn't even up to the level of debate of an internet forum, let alone the national legislature

At the end of the day she didn't like it and said as much. Nobody is above scrutiny.

Rodney Bathgate

Bowie wrote: »

At the end of the day she didn't like it and said as much. Nobody is above scrutiny.

Including Ms. Smith?

a very cool kid

Isn't the issue here that she determined the judge was bias because she didn't agree with the decision the judge made based on their interpretation of the law?

Kind of like saying the referee in a soccer match is fixed for one team instead of saying he's blind when a decision goes against you!

joeguevara

a very cool kid wrote: »

Isn't the issue here that she determined the judge was bias because she didn't agree with the decision the judge made based on their interpretation of the law?

Kind of like saying the referee in a soccer match is fixed for one team instead of saying he's blind when a decision goes against you!

If that was the case there would be no issue as anyone is entitled to critically analyse a decision based on merit. The issue is that she didn’t analyse the judgment or give any thesis on it but jumped straight to the judges salary and stated he can’t make a rational decision because of it.

If I’m wrong (which I don’t think so) show me any analysis of the judgment by her, and even more so did she raise the fact that the judgment is subject to appeal.

I find Richard an excellent representative and even handed. I don’t find Brid the same.

Podge_irl

Bowie wrote: »

At the end of the day she didn't like it and said as much. Nobody is above scrutiny.

She scrutinised absolutely nothing.

She went off on a rant about the judge's salary. It was a personal attack, nothing more.

a very cool kid

joeguevara wrote: »

If that was the case there would be no issue as anyone is entitled to critically analyse a decision based on merit. The issue is that she didn’t analyse the judgment or give any thesis on it but jumped straight to the judges salary and stated he can’t make a rational decision because of it.

If I’m wrong (which I don’t think so) show me any analysis of the judgment by her, and even more so did she raise the fact that the judgment is subject to appeal.

I find Richard an excellent representative and even handed. I don’t find Brid the same.

That's sort of what I meant - she attacked the judge himself rather than the decision he made.

joeguevara

a very cool kid wrote: »

That's sort of what I meant - she attacked the judge himself rather than the decision he made.

That is slightly different than saying she criticised their interpretation of the Law. She implied that as they had such a high salary, they should not be judging on the matter. I didn't actually see her criticising any interpretation.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

At the end of the day she didn't like it and said as much. Nobody is above scrutiny.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scrutiny

Scrutiny: the careful and detailed examination of something in order to get information about it

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scrutiny

Scrutiny: a searching examination or investigation; minute inquiry.
surveillance; close and continuous watching or guarding.
a close and searching look.

I have looked at the definitions of scrutiny and I find it impossible to accept the categorisation of Ms Smith's tirade as anything close to the meaning of scrutiny.

maestroamado

I had forgoitton all about this post.
So the legislators and Judiciary completely separate.
Yet i read a couple of weeks ago that Barry Cowan (a senior legislator)
He had hired a high profile team to challenge what was on Gardai file in relation to his conviction.
I think this is the reason he was sacked.
So the legislators and rhe Judicary are completely separate.
Yet a senior legislator can challenge something that happened 4 years before.
I may not understand but i cannot see how they are separate in this instance...

joeguevara

maestroamado wrote: »

I had forgoitton all about this post.
So the legislators and Judiciary completely separate.
Yet i read a couple of weeks ago that Barry Cowan (a senior legislator)
He had hired a high profile team to challenge what was on Gardai file in relation to his conviction.
I think this is the reason he was sacked.
So the legislators and rhe Judicary are completely separate.
Yet a senior legislator can challenge something that happened 4 years before.
I may not understand but i cannot see how they are separate in this instance...

Do you understand the separation of powers?

Do you understand the difference between legal team and judiciary?

Do you understand what happened in the Barry Cowen case?

Because from what you have posted this has nothing to do with anything here.

maestroamado

So its perfectly ok for a serving Minister (senior legislator) to challenge circumstances of his arrest of 4 years after event in court?
The initial complainer in this thread was the serving Minister for Justice at the time.

You seem to know more about this than me so you can explain...

VinLieger

maestroamado wrote: »

So its perfectly ok for a serving Minister (senior legislator) to challenge circumstances of his arrest of 4 years after event in court?
The initial complainer in this thread was the serving Minister for Justice at the time.

You seem to know more about this than me so you can explain...

He is challenging the record of his arrest as a private citizen, something which every citizen is entitled to do, his status as a minister or TD has literally no bearing on this process.

He also is asking why and how a private arrest record was made public which again he has every right to do as someone within the gardai has done something illegal for that to happen and that absolutely needs to be investigated.

Also as far as im aware he didnt hire a legal team for this purpose till after he was sacked as a minister but havent been able to find and exact timeline for that.

None of this has anything to do with seperation of powers

maestroamado

VinLieger wrote: »

He is challenging the record of his arrest as a private citizen, something which every citizen is entitled to do, his status as a minister or TD has literally no bearing on this process.

He also is asking why and how a private arrest record was made public which again he has every right to do as someone within the gardai has done something illegal for that to happen and that absolutely needs to be investigated.

Also as far as im aware he didnt hire a legal team for this purpose till after he was sacked as a minister but havent been able to find and exact timeline for that.

Well Michael Martin said he had no option but to terminate once Mr Cowan took legal option. I be thinking MM must have known.
Anyway there nothing about it now but interesting all the same...

VinLieger

maestroamado wrote: »

Well Michael Martin said he had no option but to terminate once Mr Cowan took legal option. I be thinking MM must have known.
Anyway there nothing about it now but interesting all the same...

No Michael Martin said he sacked him for refusing to make a second statement to the dail

maestroamado

VinLieger wrote: »

No Michael Martin said he sacked him for refusing to make a second statement to the dail

What i read in the printed press is MM said when Mr Cowan took legal route the game was over...

VinLieger

maestroamado wrote: »

What i read in the printed press is MM said when Mr Cowan took legal route the game was over...

This is completely off topic but he clearly said at the time he was sacked for refusing to make a second statement

joeguevara

maestroamado wrote: »

What i read in the printed press is MM said when Mr Cowan took legal route the game was over...

Show me where that was written. Because it’s not true.

maestroamado

VinLieger wrote: »

No Michael Martin said he sacked him for refusing to make a second statement to the dail

What i read in the printed press is MM said when Mr Cowan took legal route the game was over...

Robert McGrath

joeguevara wrote: »

Show me where that was written. Because it’s not true.

Even if it was, MM made a judgment on who he wanted in his cabinet, which is his prerogative. It could have been based on the colour of Cowen’s shoes that morning. The hiring and firing of ministers has absolutely nothing to with the separation of powers and even implying it does is so inaccurate that it’s not even just wrong, it’s just weird

maestroamado

joeguevara wrote: »

Show me where that was written. Because it’s not true.

Yes i will post it later...

maestroamado

joeguevara wrote: »

Show me where that was written. Because it’s not true.

//www.irishmirror https:.ie/news/irish-news/politics/barry-cowen-sacking-micheal-martin-22363024

So this story is lies?

joeguevara

maestroamado wrote: »

//www.irishmirror https:.ie/news/irish-news/politics/barry-cowen-sacking-micheal-martin-22363024

So this story is lies?

As per this story He sacked him because he refused to answer questions About the real facts of the case and faith in him was lost. Completely different from what you had stated. And as far from separation of powers argument that you had made as possible.

maestroamado

joeguevara wrote: »

As per this story He sacked him because he refused to answer questions About the real facts of the case and faith in him was lost. Completely different from what you had stated. And as far from separation of powers argument that you had made as possible.

You said the article did not excist so get over it.
I did not ever mention separation of powers, someone else made that comment, i stated nothing the article is what happened and you said it did not exist.

You do not know what you on about as its clear in the article that MM said he went to the courts and it game over.
Cowan was simply stupid to respond to the Sunday article and the hole just got bigger every time i spoke.
BTW i actually was one of the few people i know who liked Brian C so i am not having a go.
Barry likely recover as these ar the politicians we like...

joeguevara

maestroamado wrote: »

You said the article did not excist so get over it.
I did not ever mention separation of powers, someone else made that comment, i stated nothing the article is what happened and you said it did not exist.

You do not know what you on about as its clear in the article that MM said he went to the courts and it game over.
Cowan was simply stupid to respond to the Sunday article and the hole just got bigger every time i spoke.
BTW i actually was one of the few people i know who liked Brian C so i am not having a go.
Barry likely recover as these ar the politicians we like...

You made the point of Cowen questioning his case as a senior legislator and the judiciary. That is you mentioning a breach of separation of powers. That is not what happened. I don’t think you understand what you’re really arguing. You aren’t comprehending anything the article is saying. And not Being pedantic but it’s Cowen.

maestroamado

joeguevara wrote: »

You made the point of Cowen questioning his case as a senior legislator and the judiciary. That is you mentioning a breach of separation of powers. That is not what happened. I don’t think you understand what you’re really arguing. You aren’t comprehending anything the article is saying. And not Being pedantic but it’s Cowen.

He did ask the question and Michael Martin acknowledeged that in the article, it may be the press told lies as you say.

So we Cabinet of Ministers with collective accountability for the running of our country.
Then we have one of these people going to court in front of the Judges they appoint to office to complain about false reporting by the Gardai.
The reason for going to court is to question the details of arrest before he accepted whatever penalty imposed.
The reason he can ask the question is because it did not go to court 4

years earlier the case was not contested.
Also Mr Cowan was also a legislator at the time of the offence, he was mature person? around 50 driving on a provisional license and he turned away from the checkpoint.
So these are the people who we want to run our country.
I think you should have a glass of something strong...

blanch152

maestroamado wrote: »

He did ask the question and Michael Martin acknowledeged that in the article, it may be the press told lies as you say.

So we Cabinet of Ministers with collective accountability for the running of our country.
Then we have one of these people going to court in front of the Judges they appoint to office to complain about false reporting by the Gardai.
The reason for going to court is to question the details of arrest before he accepted whatever penalty imposed.
The reason he can ask the question is because it did not go to court 4

years earlier the case was not contested.
Also Mr Cowan was also a legislator at the time of the offence, he was mature person? around 50 driving on a provisional license and he turned away from the checkpoint.
So these are the people who we want to run our country.
I think you should have a glass of something strong...

I find it difficult to u derstand the point you are making in relation to separation of powers and the comparison between Cowen and Smith.

Podge_irl

Cowen going through the courts rather than the press is the correct way to do it.

maestroamado

Podge_irl wrote: »

Cowen going through the courts rather than the press is the correct way to do it.

Michael Martin said thats why he was sacked...

VinLieger

maestroamado wrote: »

Michael Martin said thats why he was sacked...

Doesnt change the fact that hes pursuing the correct course of action to find out how his records were leaked and have them amended to show what in his opinion actually happened.

Or would you prefer he stand up in the dail to continuously bad mouth the gardai using his platform as a TD and literally do exactly what you seem to be complaining about.

maestroamado

VinLieger wrote: »

Doesnt change the fact that hes pursuing the correct course of action to find out how his records were leaked and have them amended to show what in his opinion actually happened.

Or would you prefer he stand up in the dail to continuously bad mouth the gardai using his platform as a TD and literally do exactly what you seem to be complaining about.

The point is he did badmouth the Gardai after the Sunday article in the times which was a hugh error on his part, if he had said nothing it would likely have drifted into history.
I thought this was over so there be a court case pending between Mr Cowan and the Gardai?
His opinion in my opinion is irellevant 4 years after the incident, if he wins the case it will set a precident going forward for anyone arrested.
I be very surprised if this ever goed to court.
He is still a TD though very quiet, the biggest mistake he made was taking on Gardai version of arrest after he turned away from checkpoint.
If he had said nothing he be Minister today.

Randy Archer

maestroamado wrote: »

Michael Martin said thats why he was sacked...

He, he was sacked because he refused to make a public statement because he’s going to the courts . He stayed silent and refused to answer questions . Something very fishy about this case , who leaked this information out to the media. Cowen must have enemies or someone was out to harm and embarrass Martin. Something tells me FF is going to have some internal upheaval

Nothing unprecedented about challenging the Gardai by way of judicial review over records

Randy Archer

maestroamado wrote: »

So its perfectly ok for a serving Minister (senior legislator) to challenge circumstances of his arrest of 4 years after event in court?
The initial complainer in this thread was the serving Minister for Justice at the time.

You seem to know more about this than me so you can explain...

In his personal capacity , yes .

Nothing wrong with it. His dispute is with the GARDAI and not the courts . By your logic, the Gardai can not charge and prosecute a TD in his personal capacity before the courts .

4 years ? So what ? Some Legal procedures have a statute of limitation period of 6 years . I don’t know what procedure cowen is using so not sure if he’s within time or not .

maestroamado

Randy Archer wrote: »

In his personal capacity , yes .

Nothing wrong with it. His dispute is with the GARDAI and not the courts . By your logic, the Gardai can not charge and prosecute a TD in his personal capacity before the courts .

4 years ? So what ? Some Legal procedures have a statute of limitation period of 6 years . I don’t know what procedure cowen is using so not sure if he’s within time or not .

The time to challenge the decision was at the time but he accepted the penalty and now wants to go to court 4 years on.
If he was unhappy he should have challenged the penalty at the time.
I never hesard of anyone accecpting a penalty and later going to the courts to challenge at a later time.
I do believe that the norm is we accept and pay whatever penalty or go to the courts and challenge.
The legal professjion will have a great time if this challenge d=succeeds in the courts. It will not go to court because of this in my view...

maestroamado

Randy Archer wrote: »

He, he was sacked because he refused to make a public statement because he’s going to the courts . He stayed silent and refused to answer questions . Something very fishy about this case , who leaked this information out to the media. Cowen must have enemies or someone was out to harm and embarrass Martin. Something tells me FF is going to have some internal upheaval

Nothing unprecedented about challenging the Gardai by way of judicial review over records

Michael Martin said he was sacked because he took the court option.
The internal politics is for FF and Martin to sort...

joeguevara

maestroamado wrote: »

Michael Martin said he was sacked because he took the court option.
The internal politics is for FF and Martin to sort...

I get your point and there is merit. I note the article you posted before did say that Micheál did say that he wanted it to go the political route rather than the legal route. This wasn’t in quotes and appears to be an opinion of the writer. I didn’t see that opined in any other article or indeed speech. To me the reason it appears that he was sacked as minister was he refused to answer questions and lost the faith of his leader.

But interestingly what has transpired is that because he is dismissed as a minister and continuing his case as a private individual he is respecting the separation of powers.

In the Brid Smith case she attacked a judge. In the Cowen case he is questioning the Gardai (which is not part of the limbs of the state that separation of powers protects). You have raised some good points and I am sorry if I didn’t respect that. But, if you agree this thread mightn’t be the best place to discuss them as it could confuse the thread.