If you had the power to make/repeal one law, what would it be?

Quaver · 12-03-2009 10:01PM #1

I would get rid of the double jeopardy rule.

It really bothers me that people can appeal a conviction, but the State can't appeal an acquittal. Obviously I would still put some limitations on it, such as there has to be new evidence, or the acquittal would be on a technicality or something.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Sangre · 12-03-2009 11:03PM

Clubs/pubs closing hours. Forces everyone onto the streets at the exact same time pissed after downing their last drinks. Puts huge strain on taxis, food, buses and gardai.

Latchy · 12-03-2009 11:07PM

Sangre wrote: »

Clubs/pubs closing hours. Forces everyone onto the streets at the exact same time pissed after downing their last drinks. Puts huge strain on taxis, food, buses and gardai.

And casualty hospital staff who have to deal with the mess .

I think drunks and others who make a nuisance of themselfs in hospitals after closing time should be billed .

McCrack · 12-03-2009 11:53PM

Get rid of PIAB so the PIAB Acts and before anybody posts something cynical no it doesnt cut legal costs as the government would like people to think it actually adds both costs and time to a plaintiffs action.

But lawyers ultimately benefit from the additional costs it adds but the injured party suffers.

It's a farce.

Hooch · 21-03-2009 01:43AM

Close ever single little silly loophole in drink driving legislation. If you drive while drunk you dont deserve to get off on something stupid.

McCrack · 21-03-2009 01:25PM

nice guy always wrote: »

Close ever single little silly loophole in drink driving legislation. If you drive while drunk you dont deserve to get off on something stupid.

To be fair there are no 'silly loopholes' in the legislation, there are some Gardai that make silly mistakes that result in charges getting struck out.

Fighting Irish · 21-03-2009 02:44PM

A law that every law in the country should be reviewed every 4 or 5 years

Our man in Havana · 21-03-2009 02:57PM

Repeal the sections of the Road Traffic Act that allow the Gardaí to state a person was speeding without proof that can be questioned in court, ie the sections that say speed measurement devices cannot be challenged.

Hooch · 21-03-2009 06:31PM

McCrack wrote: »

To be fair there are no 'silly loopholes' in the legislation, there are some Gardai that make silly mistakes that result in charges getting struck out.

I take your point and i suppose i have no choice but agree with you (thankfully havint ever made a mistake big enough to get a 49 struck out). I should re phrase it, the law should be like France. If your caught and over the limit then your convicted. Simple. Over the limit is over the limit and driving is driving.

I really hope that no one would disagree that it is wrong to drink and drive.

Tom Young · 22-03-2009 03:26AM

I'd:

1. Reduce the duration for serious criminal offences to 12 months (disengaging the Bail Act 1991 from the current 5 year duration);

2. Re-introduce the vagrancy act as quickly as I could; and

3. Replace sentencing guidelines to cater for determinate sentencing policy which has recently been the subject of judicial review at the Court of Criminal Appeal - CCA, to cater foe what I believe to be suitable punishment to fit crimes of excessive depravity.

Tom

Sparks · 28-03-2009 04:33PM

I'm torn between a law that requires that all new legislation be required to provide restatements of all amended acts so that we only have one act to read for the primary legislation instead of a dozen or so; a law that requires that all SIs be published in at least one central publicly accessible place (in full); and a law that changes the burden of proof in defamation cases so that either the plaintiff has to prove defamation (or, failing that, that there at least be some form or protection from SLAPP cases).

Tom Young · 28-03-2009 05:44PM

Most if not all SI's and acts are all available on www.irishstatutebook.ie - Sometimes there is a delay in publication and if so they can be got from Irish Oifiguil - Irish Official Journal.

I don't get your point on Burden's of Proof in Defamation cases, can you explain please?

There is protection from SLAPP here too via rules of court.

Tom

Sparks · 28-03-2009 05:54PM

IrishStatuteBook.ie is great, but when the SI is initally published, it's sometimes awkward to find unless you go into the publications office physically (and not all of us can do that easily). We had some problems getting a hold of SIs (commencement orders to be exact) a year or three ago for new bits of the Firearms Acts over that.

By the burden of proof, what I mean is that it seems that all you have to do to intimidate with the libel laws is to merely threaten to sue for libel - most people don't have a war chest handy to mount a legal defence in court. If it was required that the plaintiff show that the alleged defamatory statements were in fact not fair comment or true statements, that would prevent that (though it does then raise the issue of people damaging other people's good names with relative impunity becuase most people don't have a war chest handy to mount a legal challange in court).
It just seems we're at one end of the pendulum swing at the moment, if that analogy makes sense.

As to the protection from SLAPP through rules of court, would you have any more specific references? Even just a pointer in the right direction?

Tom Young · 28-03-2009 06:26PM

Threats should be viewed as just that. On review, there freedoms of expression are widening quite a bit and have been doing so for a number of years and also on a legislative basis - ECHR and our ECHR Act 2003.

In relation to SLAPP there are a number of mechanisms: -

The main one is timelines - There are guidelines by which litigants should act in for filing papers, if these are not adhered to actions 'can be' dismissed for want of prosecution, this is just one aspect. Lodgments or payments into court can also deter impecunious litigants. There are a myriad of differing approaches, but most barristers will be fine tuned to deal with such items.

Discovery, particulars and interrogatories are becoming more widely used to get to the bottom of cases e.g., to prove or disprove the investigation of fact in a given case or story, say in defamation or any action.

darragh666 · 30-03-2009 05:30PM

I thought it was held in O Shea that the state could appeal acquitals.

Quaver · 30-03-2009 05:39PM

darragh666 wrote: »

I thought it was held in O Shea that the state could appeal acquitals.

Only in Judge-directed acquittals, and even then it's highly unlikely for it to actually happen. They can also appeal the leniency of a sentence.

I'm open to correction though?

McCrack · 30-03-2009 06:57PM

There's no right to appeal acquittal either judge-directed or otherwise.
What O'Shea did was confirm that the Supreme Court cannot interfere with an acquital.

The power of the prosecution are very limited re appealing acquittal, really only limited to appeals on points of law stemming from the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 but whose determinations have no effect on the person acquitted.

Rabeile31 · 05-04-2009 01:39AM

I would introduce something to stop people's social benefits if they committed a crime and were convicted for it.

i see it all the time the same people gettin their benefit money from the post office and heading straight to the off license to buy alcohol and that night would damage property or fight on the streets!

It really annoys me to see them get away with it, especially when other peole have to work hard for their money

Rashers · 06-04-2009 02:38AM

A mandatory 5 year custodial sentence for anyone found in possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Quaver · 06-04-2009 03:40PM

Rashers wrote: »

A mandatory 5 year custodial sentence for anyone found in possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Great idea, I'll second that! Why would anyone have an unlicenced firearm without intending to use it either to threaten or harm somebody.

freefromgov · 06-04-2009 04:25PM

Quaver wrote: »

Great idea, I'll second that! Why would anyone have an unlicenced firearm without intending to use it either to threaten or harm somebody.

Interesting Point you raise there Quaver!

Well you are making an assumption that anyone with an unlicenced firearm must be up to no good.
Man accross the globe for many, many years has been in such a state.

Quaver · 06-04-2009 04:28PM

freefromgov wrote: »

Interesting Point you raise there Quaver!

Well you are making an assumption that anyone with an unlicenced firearm must be up to no good.
Man accross the globe for many, many years has been in such a state.

In this country in today's society, there is no need for an unlicenced firearm.

Sparks · 06-04-2009 04:49PM

With the obvious allowances for genuine edge cases such as someone coming back from holiday with a toy gun in their possession that technically isn't in compliance with the firearms acts in this jurisdiction - ie, where it's a genuinely innocent mistake - then yes, please, mandatory sentencing for anyone holding an unlicenced firearm.

freefromgov · 07-04-2009 11:26AM

Quaver wrote: »

In this country in today's society, there is no need for an unlicenced firearm.

So what in your opinion does a licence do exactly?
I have looked at the S.I. in relation to firearms and I fail to see how they would prevent anyone that wishes to do harm to another from doing so.
They do not seem to be deterring criminals from getting firearms and using them in any way....... It could be argued that if that Plumber lad that was shot dead for being in the wrong place at the wrong time had a firearm perhaps he could have defended himself and not have been killed, in fact he may well could have saved the other man that was shot, and if he was found to be a criminal that hurts people then he could have recieved his just desert. Now I am not suggesting that the Plumber (I don't know his name) should have been carring an un-licenced firearm perhaps one with a licence, but I fail to see the reason you believe a licence will or would make a difference other than generate finance for the licencee.
Peace to you all

freefromgov · 07-04-2009 11:30AM

Quaver wrote: »

Great idea, I'll second that! Why would anyone have an unlicenced firearm without intending to use it either to threaten or harm somebody.

Oh another thing crossed my mind. Do you believe then that firearm licences should be difficult to obtain? or should anyone be able to have one over the age of eighteen as long as perhaps they have no Criminal record for Voilence.
I don't think bad parking should disqualify one do you?
Peace to you.

Sparks · 07-04-2009 11:33AM

freefromgov wrote: »

So what in your opinion does a licence do exactly?
I have looked at the S.I. in relation to firearms and I fail to see how they would prevent anyone that wishes to do harm to another from doing so.

Not that I want to discourage anyone from actually looking up what the firearms laws are, because I think that that's the kind of thing that we need to see more of, but there's more than one SI. There's six main Acts, two EU directives and their amendments, and I lost count of the SIs a while back.

That aside, the point of the licence is mainly to do two things as I understand it - firstly to assure the public that those with licenced firearms are not a threat; and secondly to allow the arrest of anyone caught with an unlicenced firearm by making it an offence to have one.

freefromgov · 07-04-2009 11:34AM

Rashers wrote: »

A mandatory 5 year custodial sentence for anyone found in possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Hi rashers, Do you have a particular reason for holding that opinion or have you not really thought it through.

Peace to you.

Sparks · 07-04-2009 11:37AM

freefromgov wrote: »

Oh another thing crossed my mind. Do you believe then that firearm licences should be difficult to obtain? or should anyone be able to have one over the age of eighteen as long as perhaps they have no Criminal record for Voilence.
I don't think bad parking should disqualify one do you?

Define "difficult"?
Right now, you have to have good reason to have one, have a secure place to store it, not be a danger to the public or the peace if you had the firearm you're looking for, and not be disqualified from applying (the list of those disqualified is how minimum ages and those with custodial sentences and so on are managed). There are a host of procedures to ensure these are complied with, ranging from home visits from the CPO to giving access to your medical records to the Superintendent.

The current age limit is 16, 14 with a training licence (whenever that's commenced, and it has a supervision requirement built in). Parking tickets do not disqualify you from owning a licence.

Rashers · 07-04-2009 01:43PM

freefromgov wrote: »

Hi rashers, Do you have a particular reason for holding that opinion or have you not really thought it through.

Peace to you.

Yes I have a particular reason. And yes of course I have thought it through.

I believe that if a person is found to be in possession/control of an unlicenced firearm then after arrest the Gardai do not need to prove whether it was/was not used in the committal of a crime. The crime would be the possession of the firearm. Sufficient to take this person out of society for the 5 years I propose.

The threat of removing that person from society would therefore, in my opinion, reduce the amount of offences involving the use or threat of firearms.

Demonique · 07-04-2009 01:48PM

I'd appeal the law that made begging legal

I'm sick of being harassed by beggers at the ATM be it Roma gypsies, that blonde cow that says "will ya gizza a euro" and then swears at you when you fail to comply or that "wah I'm pregnant, my boyfriend kicked me out, called me a b***h and my baby a b*****d, the cash machine is over there" bint who tried to guilt trip me with her prego sob story.

freefromgov · 07-04-2009 02:16PM

Sparks wrote: »

Define "difficult"? ( I would have thought the definition of difficult was farliy obvious when you read the rest of post ! anyone disagree? )
Right now, you have to have good reason to have one( I can't find that anywhere, where is that please. Oh and who gets to say the reason is good??), have a secure place to store it, not be a danger to the public or the peace if you had the firearm you're looking for ( I am not looking for a firearm......just to be clear, Im just having a discussion about them, that's all I am not exprssing beliefs just posing questions to find out the beliefs of others such as yourself, Thats all), and not be disqualified from applying (the list of those disqualified is how minimum ages (Sorry I'm not sure what you are saying here can you clarify, Thankyou) and those with custodial sentences and so on are managed). There are a host of procedures to ensure these are complied with, ranging from home visits from the CPO to giving access to your medical records ( why are medical records required???)to the Superintendent.

The current age limit is 16, 14 with a training licence (whenever that's commenced, and it has a supervision requirement built in). Parking tickets do not disqualify you from owning a licence.

Well I dont think they should, So I'm still waiting to find out why those posting believe a Licence to be necessary ? I have my own opinion but for the moment I'll hang on to it , but if you wish I'll give it.

If you had the power to make/repeal one law, what would it be?

Comments