Finally a judge with a bit of sense

DellyBelly

I say well done to this particular Judge Mr Justice John Edwards. So many times you'd hear barristers for the accused asking for leniency because they had a tough upbringing or that they realise they have a drug problem and are undergoing treatment to sort their lives out (we all well know that this is BS most of the time). Hopefully it leads to tougher sentences and cuts out people building up convictions in the hundreds

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/judge-putting-down-a-marker-that-barristers-must-back-up-their-claims-in-court-1149120.html

biko

A judge of the Court of Appeal has “put down a marker” that barristers must provide evidence of anything they want to rely on during sentence hearings.

Mr Justice John Edwards said the practice of barristers giving evidence on a hearsay basis without calling witnesses or providing medical or other evidence to back up what they say “has to stop”.

Good.

McGinniesta

go on the judge with a bit of sense

0lddog

What odds this thread would be locked pronto if moved to the Legal Forum ?

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Good.

That was allowed to go on?

It's one thing when the prosecution and the defense stipulate to the same facts but just taking the word of someone's lawyer seems ripe for abuse.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

That was allowed to go on?

It's one thing when the prosecution and the defense stipulate to the same facts but just taking the word of someone's lawyer seems ripe for abuse.

Exactly.

I wouldn't get too excited people.

We have a thing called 'precedence' in Irish law.

Kermit.de.frog

I would urge people to randomly attend hearings if you want to see this circus in action.

The judge doesn't even lift his head to look at the defendant. Why? Because he/she has seen most of them before over and over again.

Then you get the bs from the solicitors about the circumstances of their client and every time it's the same regurgitated sh!te.

It's copy/paste.

Fair play to the judge.

Quantum Erasure

0lddog wrote: »

What odds this thread would be locked pronto if moved to the Legal Forum ?

We can't give legal advice on Boards, but hypothetically speaking....

Potential-Monke

I always found that part strange and eventually just accepted that just was the way it is. Makes sense that they should have to prove all this. Can see some doctors getting rich(er). Precedence or not, he's not asking to change law or anything like that, he's just now requesting the onus of proof be provided where it was just taken all along.

Beta Ray Bill

It's been going on for years and is basically Perjury

Perjury is a serious crime, as it often results in a miscarriage of justice.

If they're caught doing this, they should be struck off by the bar council for a period of time.
Maybe 3 strikes, and they're out?

jpfahy

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

It's been going on for years and is basically Perjury

Perjury is a serious crime, as it often results in a miscarriage of justice.

If they're caught doing this, they should be struck off by the bar council for a period of time.
Maybe 3 strikes, and they're out?

It's not perjury as the barristers aren't sworn when making submissions in mitigation.

Beta Ray Bill

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

It's been going on for years and is basically Perjury

Perjury is a serious crime, as it often results in a miscarriage of justice.

If they're caught doing this, they should be struck off by the bar council for a period of time.
Maybe 3 strikes, and they're out?

How is it perjury when it is not evidence on oath???

MarkR

It's like watching one of those tv shows where people compete by telling everyone how sad their life is, and then performing their party piece. Severed head rolls onto stage and starts tap dancing. *golden buzzer*

dubdamo

Barrister nearly always starts with, 'my client informs me that he is ,drug free, giving clean urines etc etc. They are of course careful not to perjure themselves.

dubdamo

dubdamo wrote: »

Barrister nearly always starts with, 'my client informs me that he is ,drug free, giving clean urines etc etc. They are of course careful not to perjure themselves.

How do you think they could possibly perjure themselves?

B.A._Baracus

bubblypop wrote: »

How is it perjury when it is not evidence on oath???

He said "basically perjury"
Telling a lie, an untruth willingly in court for your own interests. It is basically perjury - at the end of the day still lying to suit yourself. Oath or no oath.

Courts are the biggest load of bollocks when you think about it tho. Like a place where "justice will prevail" lol. Yet a place full of lies and liars
I reckon more people have placed their hand on the bible and lied than told the truth in all the courts around the world.

JackieChang

"Judge 'putting down a marker' that barristers must back up their claims in court"

What does "putting down a marker" mean?

Is it the equivalent of wagging your finger and saying tut-tut?

Doesn't sound threatening at all. "If you don't do your homework I'll be putting down a marker".

Or is it an actual legal thing now that evidence must be shown that Jimmy O'Scrote has negative drug tests etc.

JustAThought

I’m actually shocked. Why was this ever allowed or accepted without any kind of proof or data being required? Is this what has been responsible for littering our streets and communities with recidivist criminal scum for decades while the gravy train of free legal aid building lavish homes in Dalkey for barristers rolls on regardless.


Every contract for insurance or company contract or basic government admin requires a bit of paper or proof or written receipt. Why has the criminal justice system been allowed to shrug this basic responsibility off?

...Ghost...

:pac::pac::pac:

I'll believe it when I see it. I've seen this circus in the courts.

Judge: 130 Previous convictions?

Solicitor: She's indicated that she has turned a corner and wishes to focus her energies on her family. She promised she won't partake in driving with no tax, insurance, NCT or license in the future and will no longer shoplift.

Judge: OK, be good now. On your merry way. Wait! Are those my car keys in your hand?

Defendant: Oops.

0lddog

JackieChang wrote: »

"Judge 'putting down a marker' that barristers must back up their claims in court"

What does "putting down a marker" mean? ....

I dont know but suspect it is akin to what Ray Bourke ( TD & minister ) - remember him ? - did all those years ago when he 'drew a line in the sand'.


That is to say, it means nothing at all

Potential-Monke

Well I'd imagine that in his court, at least, he won't allow solicitors to say anything in defence of his client without physical proof now. We're hoping that this trickles down throughout the countries courts, but I can't see it happening, at least not for a while. But a bigger issue needs to be made of this. We need to be asking why now? Can it not be circulated to all Judges to remind them that they need proof?

Beta Ray Bill

jpfahy wrote: »

It's not perjury as the barristers aren't sworn when making submissions in mitigation.

bubblypop wrote: »

How is it perjury when it is not evidence on oath???

Point taken, but why is not ok to lie in court, but is ok to lie through someone else?

Is court of justice not there determine the truth?

Again I get what you're saying as technically the barristers are not sworn in... but maybe they should be?

dubdamo wrote: »

Barrister nearly always starts with, 'my client informs me that he is ,drug free, giving clean urines etc etc. They are of course careful not to perjure themselves.

To which a Judge could simply reply: "Have you verified this?"

Potential-Monke

Well, there's a fairly lenghty Code of Conduct for Barristers, not sure if that means they are sworn in, but it still covers honesty, just a snippet from the beginning:

2.3. It is the duty of Barristers:
(a) to comply with the provisions of the Code;
(b) to act at all times with honesty and integrity;
(c) not to engage in conduct (whether in pursuit of their profession or otherwise)
which may bring the Barristers' profession into disrepute, which may injure the
dignity and high standing of the profession, or which is likely to diminish the trust
and confidence placed in them or in the profession;
(d) not to engage in conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) to observe the ethics and etiquette of their profession;
(f) to provide a competent and professional standard of work and service to each
client;
(g) to conduct their profession as Barristers so as to ensure that there is no serious
falling short, by omission or commission, of the standard of conduct expected of a
Barrister;
(h) to be individually responsible for their own conduct;
(i) to co-operate with an investigation conducted by the Bar Council and/or the PPC
pursuant to paragraph 2.20 of the Code; and
(j) to co-operate with an investigation conducted by the Barristers Professional
Conduct Tribunal or the Barristers Professional Conduct Appeals Board, pursuant
to paragraph A4 of the Disciplinary Code for the Bar of Ireland, or the Disciplinary
Committee of the Benchers of the Honorable Society of King's Inns.

Underneath that then you have:

2.5. Barristers have an overriding duty to the Court to ensure in the public interest
that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved and they must
assist the Court in the administration of justice and must not deceive or
knowingly mislead the court.

So even if they're not sworn in, they should be fired from the BAR council if caught lying. I'm not reading another 30 pages of this though.