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

Man loses Supreme Court case for bilingual jury

bumper234

Just seen this

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0227/506982-peadar-o-maicin/

Man loses Supreme Court case for bilingual jury

A native Irish speaker who is due to go on trial for assault has lost his Supreme Court bid to have his case heard by a bilingual jury.

Peadar Ó Maicín from Rosmuc in Connemara, but who is now living in Salthill, Co Galway, is charged with producing a broken whiskey bottle and assaulting another man in Leitir Móir in 2008.

He is due to go on trial at Galway Circuit Criminal Court.

The alleged victim of the offences is also a native Irish speaker.

Mr Ó Maicín had claimed he was entitled to present his defence in Irish and to have his case heard by a jury who were sufficiently competent in Irish to hear the case without the assistance of a translator.

Should he have been afforded this? Personally i say no as it points out in the item that this would exclude a large majority of people from being able to take part in the jury.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bumper234

on the river wrote: »

He desrvered to be spoken to in his native tongue. what a disgrace. offical language is irish and he cant even get that.

dosents say much for the constituation or the country

No one is stopping him from speaking in Irish but he wants the JURY to be all native Irish speakers and does not want them to use a translator.

Robbo

bumper234 wrote: »

No one is stopping him from speaking in Irish but he wants the JURY to be all native Irish speakers and does not want them to use a translator.

Also, he was taking a bet on the fact that if a jury entirely composed of Gaelgoirs is somehow empanelled for hearing in Galway, he can raise further objections as to their impartiality and whether they may know the accused. Connemara's a small place.

It's amazing how everyone's a Constitutional lawyer, having read the blue book for 10 minutes.

on the river

Robbo wrote: »

Also, he was taking a bet on the fact that if a jury entirely composed of Gaelgoirs is somehow empanelled for hearing in Galway, he can raise further objections as to their impartiality and whether they may know the accused. Connemara's a small place.

It's amazing how everyone's a Constitutional lawyer, having read the blue book for 10 minutes.

why not. he may as well use his own circumstance to help his trial.

Another question how could he afford to pay barristers for this case and his trial ?.

he must be a rich man.

Napper Hawkins

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Woah, that's a lot of baggage there mate. My primary school taught Irish really well but then in junior cert I had a ****e (young/inexeperienced) teacher.

In 4th year we got a new teacher who was so frustrated with the different standards of Irish among the students that he started everything over from scratch (verbs, tenses, vocab). He blamed the former teachers and not us. I went from hating Irish to looking forward to that class, he was really entertaining.:D

Legend of a teacher, never forced us to do the essays and never gave punishments to those who didn't (aka me). Thanks to him I ended up taking the honors paper.

Not everyone had your experience and not all Irish teachers are the same. Don't hate a language, just hate your teacher and other's like him.;)

I never said I hated the language, just the way it was taught.
My (long dead) Grandfather was fluent, I loved hearing him speak it and any Irish I do know, I learnt from him.
But my teachers made me resent it. That was my point.

If I had been lucky enough to have a teacher like yours, I'd probably have a much better grasp and appreciation of it today.

shruikan2553

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Not everyone who speaks Irish is a 'facist'. I'm not a speaker myself but some of my friends are and they're young open-minded adults. And yes a translator was all he needed.

Most tend to be fine, the fluent speakers just treat it as another language. Its the people who learnt it in their 20s that all of a sudden become an expect in Irish culture that annoy me, also theres the people like the one mentioned above and the guy who was pulled over before that decide to use it as a way of wasting time in the hopes that they will just be let go.

ormeau 1

I thought everybody in Ireland spoke English?...said the West Brit Law Lecturer.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Was it an Irish whiskey bottle or Scotch?

Wibbs

snubbleste wrote: »

administered in the first language of the State..

Only on paper, or páipéar if you like.

OneArt

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Not everyone who speaks Irish is a 'facist'. I'm not a speaker myself but some of my friends are and they're young open-minded adults. And yes a translator was all he needed.

Woah, that's a lot of baggage there mate. My primary school taught Irish really well but then in junior cert I had a ****e (young/inexeperienced) teacher.

In 4th year we got a new teacher who was so frustrated with the different standards of Irish among the students that he started everything over from scratch (verbs, tenses, vocab). He blamed the former teachers and not us. I went from hating Irish to looking forward to that class, he was really entertaining.:D

Legend of a teacher, never forced us to do the essays and never gave punishments to those who didn't (aka me). Thanks to him I ended up taking the honors paper.

Not everyone had your experience and not all Irish teachers are the same. Don't hate a language, just hate your teacher and other's like him.;)

Every Irish teacher I had did exactly the same thing. It's how the curriculum is set up: it assumes you speak Irish to at least a C1 level which is not the case for many people.

That being said, the Irish teacher I had through most of secondary school was great craic and did her best to get us through the exam. But it wasn't enjoyable and I never got a basic grounding in the language. As a language I think its fascinating with all of its cases and weird inflections, but in school it was a nightmare. If I'd studied it as a foreign language or from a linguistic perspective I know I would've enjoyed it more. Instead it was just assumed I could speak it and that's how the majority of teachers teach it.

ZeitgeistGlee

From a purely academic standpoint I'm curious as to how he believes he's entitled to a bilingual jury as opposed to his defence being merely translated from Irish to English for the benefit of those non-proficient in Irish.

From a practical standpoint it reeks of disingenuousness in the same manner of road offenders suddenly struck by a desire to be dealt with through Irish alone. At least this nonsense can't be challenged any higher up now. Really it's a pity so many of the genuine lovers of Irish are marred by actions of the few self-servers like this.

Femme_Fatale

ormeau 1 wrote: »

I thought everybody in Ireland spoke English?...said the West Brit Law Lecturer.

Well it's pretty much true.

oppenheimer1

snubbleste wrote: »

I find this shocking. I would expect the Supreme Court to ensure that justice can be conducted and administered in the first language of the State..as per the Constitution that we all respect etc etc.
Take it to the ECHR a bhuachaillín.

If the case succeeded, then the vast majority of the population would be excluded from being able to participate in a jury. Untold amounts of trials would collapse if everyone demanded an Irish jury.

bumper234

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If the case succeeded, then the vast majority of the population would be excluded from being able to participate in a jury. Untold amounts of trials would collapse if everyone demanded an Irish jury.

Would it not also set a precedent where someone from Spain/Poland/Nigeria could insist on a jury made up solely of people who speak their language?

anncoates

Is he technically a Rosmuc Savage?

snubbleste

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If the case succeeded, then the vast majority of the population would be excluded from being able to participate in a jury. Untold amounts of trials would collapse if everyone demanded an Irish jury.

Everyone is entitled to conduct their business with the State in Irish - even if there exists no Irish speakers. I would've thought that the Supreme Court would follow the Bunreacht rather than refer to common sense.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

snubbleste wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to conduct their business with the State in Irish - even if there exists no Irish speakers. I would've thought that the Supreme Court would follow the Bunreacht rather than refer to common sense.

They followed the Constitution and did so with supreme common sense.
This guys business will be carried out in Irish.

bumper234

snubbleste wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to conduct their business with the State in Irish - even if there exists no Irish speakers. I would've thought that the Supreme Court would follow the Bunreacht rather than refer to common sense.

No one is saying he can't "conduct his business" in Irish, this guy wants an ALL IRISH SPEAKING jury with no translators involved.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

bumper234

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Which is totally unworkable.

And i would guess unconstitutional due to the fact it would eliminate the majority of the populace from serving.

Iwasfrozen

snubbleste wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to conduct their business with the State in Irish - even if there exists no Irish speakers. I would've thought that the Supreme Court would follow the Bunreacht rather than refer to common sense.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Where does it say that in the constitution?

It says that Irish is the first official language of the state, de facto we have a right to do our business with the state in its first official language.

snubbleste

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Where does it say that in the constitution?

I did not say it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_the_Irish_language#Constitution

bumper234

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

It says that Irish is the first official language of the state, de facto we have a right to do our business with the state in its first official language.

And again i point out

No one is stopping him from conducting his business in the Irish language, he does not want TRANSLATORS in court translating for the NON IRISH SPEAKING jurors.

Iwasfrozen

snubbleste wrote: »

I did not say it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_the_Irish_language#Constitution

It says that Irish is the first official language of the state, de facto we have a right to do our business with the state in its first official language.

From "The Irish language as the national language is the first official language." to "Everyone is entitled to conduct their business with the State in Irish - even if there exists no Irish speakers." is a huge leap in logic. The former does not imply the latter.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

bumper234 wrote: »

And again i point out

No one is stopping him from conducting his business in the Irish language, he does not want TRANSLATORS in court translating for the NON IRISH SPEAKING jurors.

I wasn't taking the muppets side, read my earlier posts, I AGREE WITH YOU.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

From "The Irish language as the national language is the first official language." to "Everyone is entitled to conduct their business with the State in Irish - even if there exists no Irish speakers." is a huge leap in logic. The former does not imply the latter.

It does legally.
Re Implied(unremunerated) Rights, Ryan V Attorney General, the Irish Supreme Court ruled the Constitution by its wording not only conferred rights directly it also implied, by its wording, rights.
No one is actually disputing the right to conduct your business with the state through Irish, but that is not what this muppet was looking for.

Iwasfrozen

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

It does legally.
Re Implied Rights Ryan V Attorney General, the Irish Supreme Court ruled the Constitution by its wording not only conferred rights directly it also implied, by its wording, rights.
No one is actually disputing the right to conduct your business with the state through Irish, but that is not what this muppet was looking for.

Tbh I never heard of it so I did a quick google but I don't see any specific mentions to article 8 re implied rights?

bumper234

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I wasn't taking the muppets side, read my earlier posts, I AGREE WITH YOU.

Apologies

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Tbh I never heard of it so I did a quick google but I don't see any specific mentions to article 8 re implied rights?

Read the full judgement, it was ground breaking, the court found that the rights of the individual exceeded those enumerated in the Constitution and held that the citizen also held unremunerated (implied) rights stemming from the constitution.
From a legal standpoint if Irish is the first Official language of the state then de facto it is logically the right of each individual to demand to conduct their business with the state through said first official language.

Iwasfrozen

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Read the full judgement, it was ground breaking, the court found that the rights of the individual exceeded those enumerated in the Constitution and held that the citizen also held unremunerated (implied) rights stemming from the constitution.
From a legal standpoint if Irish is the first Official language of the state then de facto it is logically the right of each individual to demand to conduct their business with the state through said first official language.

But what is an implied right? Just because a person can have rights beyond what is stated in the constitution doesn't mean they do in this case. Has there ever been a judgement on this?

Anyway I agree with that others have been saying, a translator was to be provided but asking for an entirely Irish speaking jury was impractical and would have excluded a lot of people from being jurors.