nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Judges against new appointments process - great!!

nice_guy80

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bill-would-have-serious-implications-for-irish-justice-judges-say-1.3133906

Great to see the judges coming out against this proposed new system for appointing them

If they are against it, then I'm all for it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Ballstein wrote: »

How could a mere engineer or professor possibly sit in judgement of our learned friends and assess their qualifications.

What would an Engineer or a Professor of, say, Geography know about suitability of a candidate to sit in, say criminal or family cases?

Riskymove

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If it is so straightforward then please tell us how a lay person can assess a persons legal qualifications? what criteria would they use? It would be like asking me to assess a doctors medical qualifications.

Reminds me of the old saying
"What do you call the person who finishes last in their class at Medical School?"

Doctors and Lawyers are either qualified or not - that is easy to assess

The criteria on who would be the best candidate for being a Judge would be quite different than just qualifications.

The issue really is about balance on the Board making recommendations - there should be legal people in the Board to assess certain criteria and then others who can assess people through general assessment/interview

ohnonotgmail

Riskymove wrote: »

Reminds me of the old saying
"What do you call the person who finishes last in their class at Medical School?"

Doctors and Lawyers are either qualified or not - that is easy to assess

The criteria on who would be the best candidate for being a Judge would be quite different than just qualifications.

The issue really is about balance on the Board making recommendations - there should be legal people in the Board to assess certain criteria and then others who can assess people through general assessment/interview

but what is this criteria that only lay people can judge?

Riskymove

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but what is this criteria that only lay people can judge?

I haven't thought about that in detail but there are plenty of competencies used in a wide range of recruitment that lay people could assess through Interview

Candidates could show their experience and level of ability in communciation, general management of work, commitment to development etc etc

The lay people can also consider criteria that are common at present such as ensuring diversity in appointments

The legal people on the Board can assess legal experience and issues related

CrankyHaus

Deleted User wrote: »

What would an Engineer or a Professor of, say, Geography know about suitability of a candidate to sit in, say criminal or family cases?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but what is this criteria that only lay people can judge?

I can't tell if you're being serious or just winding people up.
How do you think senior pilots are selected? Or any other important position?
Yes, the opinion of colleagues is important but it isn't the only consideration.

It's widely accepted that proper appointment procedures require the involvement of laypeople. They don't just show up on the day and toss a coin to decide. They study submissions regarding the qualifications and record of candidates and discuss the candidate's merits with the other selectors, including members of the profession.

The involvemnt of laypeople prevents influence networks from taking over the process. Surely you can see how this is a good thing for judicial appointments given the widespread, and often merited, perception of excessive nepotism in the legal sector?

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What would an Engineer or a Professor of, say, Geography know about suitability of a candidate to sit in, say criminal or family cases?

They could read the criteria for any potential candidate and compare against a host of c.v's,it's not rocket science.i'd say the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers would add a bit of well needed realism into the make believe world of the law profession.

Pat Mustard

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So presumably you think that the laypersons on the Policing Authority are unable to adequately assess candidates for senior Garda positions and other Gardahould select them?

Presume whatever you like. Nothing to do with me.

[Deleted User]

smurgen wrote: »

They could read the criteria for any potential candidate and compare against a host of c.v's,it's not rocket science.i'd say the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers would add a bit of well needed realism into the make believe world of the law profession.

What's make believe about the law? It regulates people's daily lives, cases can have profound implications for individuals. Bad judges just increase the frustration felt by individuals in the system.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Do we not give lay people a vote to elect the public representative who run this country, is selecting judges a greater or more onerous responsibility than that?

Pat Mustard

smurgen wrote: »

pragmatic sensibilities of engineers would add a bit of well needed realism into the make believe world of the law profession.

Appeals against jail sentences.
Civil actions.
Advising as to costs in litigation.
Applications for orders for divorce/judicial separation/child access/guardianship/maintenance.
Leases for business premises.
Establishing title to land.
Mortgages.
Wills

All make believe matters; easily disposed of by the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers.

v638sg7k1a92bx

What is the argument against the proposed changes, maintain the status quo so that the politicians who are elected by lay people continue to appoint judges as opposed to allowing the layman select judges themselves? Are politicians not laymen???

I don't see how the status quo is any better than what is being proposed.

smurgen

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Appeals against jail sentences.

Civil actions.

Advising as to costs in litigation.

Applications for orders for divorce/judicial separation/child access/guardianship/maintenance.

Leases for business premises.

Establishing title to land.

Mortgages.

Wills

All make believe matters; easily disposed of by the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers.

You're dead right sure engineers only built the international space station,747's,the combustion engine,super coliders etc etc.how could they ever come to terms with insurmountable issues such as jail sentence appeals?!they should just leave the intellectual stuff to the law folk!

Pat Mustard

smurgen wrote: »

You're dead right sure engineers only built the international space station,747's,the combustion engine,super coliders etc etc.how could they ever come to terms with insurmountable issues such as jail sentence appeals?!they should just leave the intellectual stuff to the law folk!

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.

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's make believe about the law? It regulates people's daily lives, cases can have profound implications for individuals. Bad judges just increase the frustration felt by individuals in the system.

The sentences are make believe.there's no consistency.

Pat Mustard

smurgen wrote: »

The sentences are make believe.there's no consistency.

Sure it's all make believe. All that legal stuff. If you can't put your hand on it, it doesn't exist, right?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Appeals against jail sentences.

Civil actions.

Advising as to costs in litigation.

Applications for orders for divorce/judicial separation/child access/guardianship/maintenance.

Leases for business premises.

Establishing title to land.

Mortgages.

Wills

All make believe matters; easily disposed of by the pragmatic sensibilities of engineers.

smurgen

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Sure it's all make believe. All that legal stuff. If you can't put your hand on it, it doesn't exist, right?

No problem for engineers!sure they can wrap their heads around quantum physics and all.

smurgen

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.

smurgen

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.

Pat Mustard

smurgen wrote: »

No problem for engineers!sure they can wrap their heads around quantum physics and all.

Of course, because calculating loads to be borne by structures and predicting speeds of objects relative to other objects is the same work as is carried out by lawyers. Massive crossover of skills, training and experience there. Simple as doing the crossword, really.

smurgen

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Of course, because calculating loads to be borne by structures and predicting speeds of objects relative to other objects is the same work as is carried out by lawyers. Massive crossover of skills, training and experience there. Simple as doing the crossword, really.

It shows the ability to grasp complex ideas,engage in critical thinking and above all else display massive amounts of raw brain power.they mightn't be able to ****e talk as much as yerselves alright tho which seems to be a big part of working in law.i'll give ya that.

Pat Mustard

Unless they are competent to do the work, they won't the understand the work, and they cannot select a candidate for experience and competence in another profession.

Metric Tensor

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Unless they are competent to do the work, they won't the understand the work, and they cannot select a candidate for experience and competence in another profession.

That would mean only politicians should vote in elections?

Only doctors should be on the panel that selects consultants?

Only other school principals should interview potential candidates for new ones?

It is perfectly possible for an experienced person to understand some/all of the requirements and skills for a job without necessarily being able to do the job themselves.

Pat Mustard

Metric Tensor wrote: »

That would mean only politicians should vote in elections?

Only doctors should be on the panel that selects consultants?

Only other school principals should interview potential candidates for new ones?

No, of course not but to bring in a panel of mainly lay people is to discard expertise in favour of the lack of it.

The underlying problem is the politicization of the judicial selection process, which this bill does not attempt to resolve.

Metric Tensor wrote: »

It is perfectly possible for an experienced person to understand some/all of the requirements and skills for a job without necessarily being able to do the job themselves.

Does a layman have the expertise to select an orthopaedic surgeon for a consultancy role in a hospital? How would such a layman select a candidate who was a good fit for that job?

Metric Tensor

I 100% agree with you regarding politicisation but I would not like to see it switched to an alternative type of cronyism!

I must admit that I don't know how senior consultants are chosen but I'd imagine the CEO of the the hospital or hospital group (a lay person) has a significant input to the decision and would have to examine the patient outcomes, research history, litigation history, etc. of said surgeons career to date as well as check with his/her referees and then compare with the same items from each other candidate. All of this could be done by someone who doesn't know a clavical from a vertibra!

P.S. The definition of lay person is important. No one is suggesting a random selection from the nearest pub. Plenty of "lay people" have a very deep knowledge of the Irish legal system, case histories and what not.

Pat Mustard

Metric Tensor wrote: »

examine the patient outcomes, research history, litigation history, etc. of said surgeons career to date as well as check with his/her referees and then compare with the same items from each other candidate. All of this could be done by someone who doesn't know a clavical from a vertibra!

I disagree with you completely.

I don't see how a non medic/surgeon can accurately assess patient outcomes.

What if a patient died? That might sound awful. But what about when you hear that 90% of the patients on a particular ward are long term smokers over the age of 65, with grave health complaints and complicated medical histories? A doctor could be aware of the possibility but I wouldn't bet that a layman would.

smurgen

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I disagree with you completely.

I don't see how a non medic/surgeon can accurately assess patient outcomes.

What if a patient died? That might sound awful. But what about when you hear that 90% of the patients on a particular ward are long term smokers over the age of 65, with grave health complaints and complicated medical histories? A doctor could be aware of the possibility but I wouldn't bet that a layman would.

Do you not believe such context would be provided to the layman? All factors revelant to the decisions would be provided . At the end of the day some law experts will be on these selection boards.

flutered

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

There have been numerous instances of poor judgments so perhaps it's time that the old boys club be told that appointments have to be made by people who live in the real world.

similar to the scobe with 100 plus convictions hammering the schit out of an oap looking for their supposed to have burial money of a few quid, the judges who give them freedom to be challanging for top scum spot do not deserve their salary, never mind their pensions

Metric Tensor

All of those things could be found out by research ... by a non-medic!

I feel you might be underestimating the amount of intelligent, capable people in this country who are not legally qualified but are capable of researching the relevant issues to sufficient detail to make informed contributions to a selection panel.

I'm not suggesting this of you but I believe it is the perception of the general public that the legal profession see themselves as above all others ("No one could possibly understand what we do.")

I definitely could not select a judge but I am certain there are many who could that are not currently in the profession.

There are many roles in this country that are singular and hence the appointment committee can have no-one or a maximum of 1 person who has previously done the job. Yet these appointments are made ( and made well in some/many cases )

Anyway - I think we'll just have to disagree on this one! I can see your point and understand it well but can't agree with it in this case. In my view it risks distorting the appointments a certain way.

How about a compromise of an agreed number of independent judicial experts from foreign jurisdictions with similar common law systems?

flutered

Metric Tensor wrote: »

I 100% agree with you regarding politicisation but I would not like to see it switched to an alternative type of cronyism!

I must admit that I don't know how senior consultants are chosen but I'd imagine the CEO of the the hospital or hospital group (a lay person) has a significant input to the decision and would have to examine the patient outcomes, research history, litigation history, etc. of said surgeons career to date as well as check with his/her referees and then compare with the same items from each other candidate. All of this could be done by someone who doesn't know a clavical from a vertibra!

P.S. The definition of lay person is important. No one is suggesting a random selection from the nearest pub. Plenty of "lay people" have a very deep knowledge of the Irish legal system, case histories and what not.

in recents months they have been appointed because they have to be appointed, you know like no one is applied for consultancys in ireland, so the hse decided it would be best if they picked some names and made them consultants, that the appointments did not have the desired qualifications mattered not a whit

flutered

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yeah the last two garda commissioners have done a fantastic job

yeah who appointed kathleen o toole, who in turn appointed nos, the same o'toole is now looking at os's career decisions