Man loses Supreme Court case for bilingual jury

awec · 02-03-2014 08:41PM

GaelMise wrote: »

Here s the problem in your argument. In what way are Irish speakers different to the rest of the population other than they happen to speak Irish?

Its like saying that the jurys that sit on the Cork circut court are not representative of the population because they are all from Cork.

Yes, they are, but what significance does that have beyond where they happen to live?

In this case all jury members would have Irish, but what significance would that have beyond the language they speak?

So that's a "no" then.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 08:42PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Utter codswallop

Would you care to elaborate? Or is it a case of 'its true because I say so'.

Just to make it clear, there are circuit court areas that would have a population of around 60,000 to 100,000.
This is similer to the number of fluent Irish speakers.

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 08:44PM

GaelMise wrote: »

Would you care to elaborate? Or is it a case of 'its true because I say so'.

Just to make it clear, there are circuit court areas that would have a population of around 60,000 to 100,000.
This is similer to the number of fluent Irish speakers.

Oh you do read my posts?

Should a Polish/Chinese/Nigerian person be allowed to demand a jury consisting only of people who are fluent in their language and not want a translator?

Aka Ishur · 02-03-2014 08:45PM

GaelMise wrote: »

Would you care to elaborate? Or is it a case of 'its true because I say so'.

Just to make it clear, there are circuit court areas that would have a population of around 60,000 to 100,000.
This is similer to the number of fluent Irish speakers.

So you are proposing that the jury panel for a road offence in cork could take someone from the Donegal gaeltacht? How does that sound workable to you?

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 08:51PM

awec wrote: »

So that's a "no" then.

Sorry, I focused on the second part of your post, I take it you conceed that point.

As for the first part of you previous post, not off the top of my head, though you will have to argue why that is significant.

You also seem to think that Jurys are chosen from the population, and as such excluding 95% or whatever is a problem. The fact is that jurys are not chosen from the population, they are actually chosen from a small local subset of the register of electors. In reality every individual case already excludes 95%+ of the population from being a potential juror.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 08:55PM

Aka Ishur wrote: »

So you are proposing that the jury panel for a road offence in cork could take someone from the Donegal gaeltacht? How does that sound workable to you?

No, i'm not.
I'm suggesting that such a case should compose a panel of 12 fluent Irish speaking juror's from Cork, and in the extraordanrily unikely event that 12 suitable people cannot be found from amongst the thousands of fluent Irish speakers in Cork, then get them from the thousands of fluent Irish speakers in Waterford, Tipp, Kerry, and Limerick.

Its not fuc*ing rocket science.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 08:57PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Oh you do read my posts?

Should a Polish/Chinese/Nigerian person be allowed to demand a jury consisting only of people who are fluent in their language and not want a translator?

If and when any of those languages become official languages of our state then I would expect nothing less.

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 08:58PM

GaelMise wrote: »

If and when any of those languages become official languages of our state then I would expect nothing less.

But if they are citizens of Ireland then surely they would be entitled to the same rights as the person in this case right?

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 09:00PM

bumper234 wrote: »

But if they are citizens of Ireland then surely they would be entitled to the same rights as the person in this case right?

To be tried through either of the official languages of the state? I can only assume so?

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 09:03PM

GaelMise wrote: »

To be tried through either of the official languages of the state? I can only assume so?

English is an official language of the state so why can't this man have his case heard in English or if he prefers in Irish via a translator, if it's good enough for others it should be good enough for him right?

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 09:08PM

bumper234 wrote: »

English is an official language of the state so why can't this man have his case heard in English or if he prefers in Irish via a translator, if it's good enough for others it should be good enough for him right?

Yes, English is an official language of the state, thats why English speakers have to right to a trial in English and that the jury be competent in English. Thats why the court services has started screening jurors in Dublin to ensure that they have sufficient English to be on the jury for a trial in English.

The same right to a trial through Irish and a jury competent in Irish should be afforded to those who speak our other official language. Right?

Fred Swanson · 02-03-2014 09:09PM

This post has been deleted.

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 09:13PM

GaelMise wrote: »

Yes, English is an official language of the state, thats why English speakers have to right to a trial in English and that the jury be competent in English. Thats why the court services has started screening jurors in Dublin to ensure that they have sufficient English to be on the jury for a trial in English.

The same right to a trial through Irish and a jury competent in Irish should be afforded to those who speak our other official language. Right?

Answer me this.

The guy wants the trial to be conducted in Irish only with NO interpretor in court. How would a witness be able to give evidence to the judge/jury if they (like me)knew no Irish? Interpretive dance? Pictures and symbols? Sign language?

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 09:14PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And as I said, hopefully the case will be brought forward to the ECHR.

Fred Swanson · 02-03-2014 09:18PM

This post has been deleted.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 09:18PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Answer me this.

The guy wants the trial to be conducted in Irish only with NO interpretor in court. How would a witness be able to give evidence to the judge/jury if they (like me)knew no Irish? Interpretive dance? Pictures and symbols? Sign language?

Sorry, but the case was not for a ban on interpertors, it was for a jury competent in Irish.
This does not preculde witnesses from speaking in English if they want to. Irish speaking jurors can take evidence in Irish and English.
I.e. they can take evidence etc from the defendant in their first language, and take evidence from witnesses in English or Irish, whichever the witness prefers.

Yellowblackbird · 02-03-2014 09:23PM

GaelMise wrote: »

No, i'm not.
I'm suggesting that such a case should compose a panel of 12 fluent Irish speaking juror's from Cork, and in the extraordanrily unikely event that 12 suitable people cannot be found from amongst the thousands of fluent Irish speakers in Cork, then get them from the thousands of fluent Irish speakers in Waterford, Tipp, Kerry, and Limerick.

Its not fuc*ing rocket science.

In your new system are we waiving the three year rule for people who have previously done jury service?

ahnowbrowncow · 02-03-2014 09:32PM

GaelMise wrote: »

Sorry, but the case was not for a ban on interpertors, it was for a jury competent in Irish.
This does not preculde witnesses from speaking in English if they want to. Irish speaking jurors can take evidence in Irish and English.
I.e. they can take evidence etc from the defendant in their first language, and take evidence from witnesses in English or Irish, whichever the witness prefers.

How do you know an Irish speaking jury would also be able to understand an English speaking witness?

So we would then need an interpreter for the jury then. So we're back at square one needing interpreters.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 10:13PM

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

How do you know an Irish speaking jury would also be able to understand an English speaking witness?

So we would then need an interpreter for the jury then. So we're back at square one needing interpreters.

Why would we need interpreters for the Jury?

Fred Swanson · 02-03-2014 10:14PM

This post has been deleted.

Skylinehead · 02-03-2014 10:15PM

GaelMise wrote: »

Why would we need interpreters for the Jury?

You're assuming they understand English.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 10:16PM

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

In your new system are we waiving the three year rule for people who have previously done jury service?

I don't see why you would need to, the pool of Irish speakers that could serve on an Irish language jury is small, but for the same reason, so is the case load that would need such jurys.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 10:17PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How would this 'pervert the course of justice'?

:rolleyes:

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 10:17PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

You're assuming they understand English.

I am, are you going to argue that i'm wrong?

Iwasfrozen · 02-03-2014 10:22PM

GaelMise the man's request was deemed unconstitutional, if you don't like it you can petition for the government to hold a referendum on the matter.

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 10:25PM

GaelMise wrote: »

And as I said, hopefully the case will be brought forward to the ECHR.

Will not make a difference anyway the ECHR does not take precedence over the constitution.

These included the significant number of people - even in Gaeltacht areas - who would not have sufficient competence in Irish as well as the need to respect the rights of others to use English as an official language and the constitutional imperative that juries be truly representative.

He said this would be constitutionally impermissible and would render such a jury in breach of the constitutional requirement of representativeness.

Mr Justice Hardiman also pointed out that there were no legislative provisions requiring a person summoned to serve as a juror to have or demonstrate competence in either of the official languages of the State - Irish or English.

Skylinehead · 02-03-2014 10:28PM

GaelMise wrote: »

I am, are you going to argue that i'm wrong?

No, but if you assume the jury speaks English then we can assume the accused speaks English, and this is a massive waste of time and money.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 10:28PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

GaelMise the man's request was deemed unconstitutional, if you don't like it you can petition for the government to hold a referendum on the matter.

I don't thin it was deemed to be unconstitutional, just not supported as an explicit right under the constitution. The Government make provision for it if it wanted through legislation.

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 10:30PM

GaelMise wrote: »

I don't thin it was deemed to be unconstitutional, just not supported as an explicit right under the constitution. The Government make provision for it if it wanted through legislation.

So he has no right to make this demand and therefore is wasting time, money and resources.

Iwasfrozen · 02-03-2014 10:31PM

GaelMise wrote: »

I don't thin it was deemed to be unconstitutional, just not supported as an explicit right under the constitution. The Government make provision for it if it wanted through legislation.

No i was deemed unconstitutional, I'd lift sections from the article to show you but bumper234 has already beaten me to it on post #117.

The case can be brought to the ECHR but it would be pointless as they cannot rule in contradiction to our constitution.

Man loses Supreme Court case for bilingual jury

Comments