Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Pre-Independence Project

Options
  • 05-03-2006 10:05pm
    #1
    Kappar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭


    Anyone have any opinions of this? The Government are going to try and get rid of all Pre-Independence legislation. I think that this is a great idea not half because of my recent agony trying to locate pre-1922 legislation.

    http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/slru/pre_ind_project.html


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Sure it's not pre-1801? The ad in the Sunday Business Post today said it was pre-1801.

    I think it's great. It's completely unreasonable to have statutes dating back to the 1400's etc.

    I can definitely see something going awry though. They'll miss something, and somebody won't be able to be charged.


  • Options
    #3
    Kappar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Kappar


    Yes I think this round is just pre-1801 but I seen an interview with Mr. Ahern and he said his aim was to get rid of all pre-1922 legislation. I think we should aim for all pre-Constitution legislation.

    Indeed, this has happended before didn't it.


  • Options
    #4
    dermot_sheehan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭dermot_sheehan


    Great in theory, in practice they will mess something up

    in practice remember non-fatal offences against the person act and kennedy v. ireland, they will mess it up (abolished common law offence of kidnapping without saver for those who committted it before act)


  • Options
    #5
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    See also Quinlivan v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 IR 113 where the common law of false imprisonment was abolished and replaced with statutory offences, without transitional provisions for those who were awaiting judgement.

    However the court was able to hold that “the intention of the Oireachtas was to act prospectively and not to interfere with prosecutions under common law and s. 11 of the Criminal Law Act, 1976, of which the courts were already seised.” And saved the Government some face ;)


  • Options
    #6
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,243 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    Nice idea, but as with all law, there are grey area's; there's bound to be something that seems obsolete that isn't, or else the wording of new legislation will become a sticking point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    europerson
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭europerson


    I don't think there's any need for this. They will mess it up, and people will get away with things, away with which they shouldn't get.


  • Options
    #8
    TalkISCheap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭TalkISCheap


    You can ask for a copy of the Acts proposed to be affected. *posts nice letter to:-
    Mr. Matthew Day
    Office of The Attorney General
    Government Buildings
    Kildare Street
    Dublin 2
    *

    ;)


  • Options
    #9
    Kappar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Kappar


    TalkISCheap wrote:
    You can ask for a copy of the Acts proposed to be affected. *posts nice letter to:-
    Mr. Matthew Day
    Office of The Attorney General
    Government Buildings
    Kildare Street
    Dublin 2
    *

    ;)
    Where does it say this?


  • Options
    #10
    TalkISCheap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭TalkISCheap


    Sunday Independant, two weeks ago??


  • Options
    #11
    Eru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    flogen wrote:
    Nice idea, but as with all law, there are grey area's; there's bound to be something that seems obsolete that isn't, or else the wording of new legislation will become a sticking point.

    Isn't there always? Every new act will eb fought to death and if a case is won McD will change the law and the circle continues.

    that said I am in favour of updating the offences. Impersonating a Garda falls under the mischief Act 1925, whats the peantly? 5 shilling fine????

    Same for prostitution and of course theres many many common law offences and powers that are still hanging around. A complete upgrade is needed not just to pre-1922 but to more recent offences such as theft and as pointed out by another user, rape.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,243 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    I see that point; recently reading over the legislation in relation to gambling (not sure what year it was from, may not be a part of this project) but it was in shillings etc.; so you could only use one armed bandits (or whatever they call them) if you are betting no more than x amount per go and the jackpot is less than a certain amount too..


  • Options
    #13
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,247 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Dealing with monetary amounts and fines could be easily broadbrushed with:

    "An amount stated in an act passed between 1 January 1930 and 31 December 1939 shall be adjusted by a factor of 3

    An amount stated in an act passed between 1 January 1940 and 31 December 1949 shall be adjusted by a factor of 2.75

    ..." or somesuch.

    Codifying fines would also make sense (I think it's been done in the UK). Essentially all very miror offences (say "Class 1") e.g. not paying parking meter are grouped together and given a single fine, the amount of which is revised periodicly. The next step up e.g. nuisance parking ("Class 2"), is given a fine that is a multiple of a Class A. Further up, e.g. dangerous parking is a Class 3 and/or one month and so on.


Advertisement