Who is person responsible for Irish laws

Red Hare

Would anyone here know if it is the President who is the person responsible for Irish laws? or if not, who is the person responsible?

Smee_Again

There’s no single person. The Dail passes legislation that is usually brought by a minister and then signed by the President.

The Seanad also gets involved.

athlone573

Red Hare wrote: »

Would anyone here know if it is the President who is the person responsible for Irish laws? or if not, who is the person responsible?

Ultimately its the taoiseach of the day supported by his cabinet who sets the direction of the legislative programme for the Oireachtas but there's a lot more to it than that... If you did CSPE at school it might cover some of it

Red Hare

Thank you for your consideration.

Under the Employment Equality Act S 74(1) ( revised and/or consolidated ) a person is required;

“the respondent” means the person who is alleged to have discriminated
against the complainant or, as the case may be, who is responsible for
providing the remuneration to which the equal remuneration term relates
or who is responsible for providing the benefit under the equality clause or
who is alleged to be responsible for the victimisation."

In terms of a decision under the 1998 Act when the Equality Tribunal was a body with a function under the Act and the Authority had a function also, as did the Department of Justice but the order to prevent victimisation made by the now defunct Tribunal is now unenforceable due to the amendments to the Act of 1998, is the President not the person who responsible since he has signed off on all the changes to the act of 1998?

GM228

Red Hare wrote: »

Would anyone here know if it is the President who is the person responsible for Irish laws? or if not, who is the person responsible?

Define responsible?

But with regards to the making of laws, it depends on the types of law, primary law (Acts) is the responsibility of the Oireachtas, secondary law however (statutory instruments, bye laws etc) is not, it can be enacted by various people (ministers etc), authorities or bodies.

AnBeagalltach

Red Hare wrote: »

Would anyone here know if it is the President who is the person responsible for Irish laws? or if not, who is the person responsible?

Do you mean positive law or maritime law? Because don’t forget that if the seal hasn’t been turned and there is no comma in AIB then there is no contract no consent. PS was the Garda wearing his hat?

athlone573

D) All of the above

I'm not sure if it's an employment law solicitor or a constitution law expert you need but the very best of luck, you'll need it.

GM228

Red Hare wrote: »

In terms of a decision under the 1998 Act when the Equality Tribunal was a body with a function under the Act and the Authority had a function also, as did the Department of Justice but the order to prevent victimisation made by the now defunct Tribunal is now unenforceable due to the amendments to the Act of 1998, is the President not the person who responsible since he has signed off on all the changes to the act of 1998?

Why do you think they are unenforceable?

If you are referring to redress under S77 of the 1998 Act, it is still applicable in it's pre 2015 revised status to cases brought before 2015.

Red Hare

Enforcement of decisions before 2015 are to be enforced at the circuit court under the Act of 1998 but the circuit court has Rules ( a statutory instrument ) requiring files and documents that were once held by the Tribunal under the aegis of the Department of Justice but the Tribunal is gone and Justice Department responsibility for the files is gone too.

Also the Act of 1998 ( including the revised and consolidated Act ) provides for the Authority under S85 to enforce the decision of the Tribunal at circuit court and high court - but there is not Authority anymore.

There is an IHREc but it can only provide assistance under specific criteria under Human Rights and Equality Commission Act. In practical terms if you represented yourself to the Tribunal then you are disqualified from IHREC assistance.

The President, signed all these reforms into law,. Is the President the person who is responsible for the victimisation performed by my employer in defiance of the order of the Tribunal?

Samuel T. Cogley

Ultimately imho it's you and me that are responsible. We vote in the guys and gals that make the laws.

This is bringing back painful memories of grundnorms.

Victor

Red Hare wrote: »

Justice Department responsibility for the files is gone too.

It's not gone. It may have been renamed.

The President, signed all these reforms into law,.

The president has little choice in such matters.

Is the President the person who is responsible for the victimisation performed by my employer in defiance of the order of the Tribunal?

No, the employer is responsible.

Engaging a solicitor who specialises in employment law may be useful.

Red Hare

Michael D Higgins President of Ireland has been in situ for donkey's years and signed all these into laws. If you voted for him, does your declaration above mean you agree that you are responsible for the victimisation?

Red Hare

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Ultimately imho it's you and me that are responsible. We vote in the guys and gals that make the laws.

This is bringing back painful memories of grundnorms.

Does this mean that if you voted for the president you propose that you are responsible for the victimisation?

GM228

Red Hare wrote: »

Enforcement of decisions before 2015 are to be enforced at the circuit court under the Act of 1998 but the circuit court has Rules ( a statutory instrument ) requiring files and documents that were once held by the Tribunal under the aegis of the Department of Justice but the Tribunal is gone and Justice Department responsibility for the files is gone too.

Also the Act of 1998 ( including the revised and consolidated Act ) provides for the Authority under S85 to enforce the decision of the Tribunal at circuit court and high court - but there is not Authority anymore

Any references in enactments to the Tribunal are now construed to mean the IHREC.

The same applies to Circuit Order 57 which I assume is the CC rules you refer to.

Red Hare

Victor,

I have engaged solicitors specialising in equality ....computer.... google .....says ..dunno.

The president is supposed to be a president..not a puppet.

Files were lost by Justice

Seve OB

Red Hare wrote: »

Michael D Higgins President of Ireland has been in situ for donkey's years and signed all these into laws. If you voted for him, does your declaration above mean you agree that you are responsible for the victimisation?

That’s some chip you have on your shoulder there.

phildub

Red Hare wrote: »

Would anyone here know if it is the President who is the person responsible for Irish laws? or if not, who is the person responsible?

Oireachtas makes the laws, presidents role is ceremonial at best. If you have issue with some tribunal being unconstitutional you need to take it to the Supreme Court . Am I correct in thinking that you are holding the president responsible for your victimization and seeking recourse through the courts?

Dublinensis

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "responsible" and I doubt anyone else in this thread besides you does either.

The President has a role in the law-making process which includes signing all Bills that have successfully passed through that process into law. It does not follow from that fact that if a law is in some way legally or morally objectionable you can sue the President for signing it and win, if that's what you're asking.

If you intend to take any legal steps you should definitely first seek (and heed) the advice of a good solicitor.

Red Hare

Under the act of 1998 the respondent is a person not a body.

I am not a “chip” carrier, but rather a citizen of Europe, endeavouring to gain protection from victimisation under the gender directive.

Irish law requires a person to be responsible for the victimisation perpetrated by the employer - not a body, or a chip. Its nothing personal against Michael D, its just he was the person who signed the relevant law and not any other person.,

GM228

In law "person" means either a natural or legal person, a legal person can be a body, the opposite to an actual person.

And by the way, you need to read our Constitution, you can't sue the President in relation to actions he takes in office in the performance of his duties.

Seve OB

Red Hare wrote: »

Under the act of 1998 the respondent is a person not a body.

I am not a “chip” carrier, but rather a citizen of Europe, endeavouring to gain protection from victimisation under the gender directive.

Irish law requires a person to be responsible for the victimisation perpetrated by the employer - not a body, or a chip. Its nothing personal against Michael D, its just he was the person who signed the relevant law and not any other person.,

Sounds like you need to take a trip up the Aras and have a word with Mick so !!!

Dublinensis

Red Hare wrote: »

Under the act of 1998 the respondent is a person not a body.

I am not a “chip” carrier, but rather a citizen of Europe, endeavouring to gain protection from victimisation under the gender directive.

Irish law requires a person to be responsible for the victimisation perpetrated by the employer - not a body, or a chip. Its nothing personal against Michael D, its just he was the person who signed the relevant law and not any other person.,

OK, if I understand you rightly you're asking whether the President can be said to be a "person responsible for ... victimisation" within the meaning of s 77 of the 1998 Act by reason of his signing amendments to that Act.

The answer is: no, he can't. To be responsible for victimisation can only mean either to cause victimisation or to be accountable for the actions of the person who did cause it (e.g. by being that person's employer). It has nothing to do with legislative amendments to the statutory redress procedure, even if those amendments make redress harder to obtain.

Red Hare

Thanks dublinensis
, that makes sense

GM228

In any case, going back to your original query, enforcement of pre 2015 decisions is still carried out the same way as it always was, the 2015 amendments didn't change that, in fact the amendments from the 2015 Act do not apply (i.e take effect) for any redress sought under S77 for pre 2015 decisions for example and any mention of the Authority etc is also inconsequential as it is provided for to he construed as the IHREC etc, this also applies to the Court rules applicable.