Man loses Supreme Court case for bilingual jury

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 10:33PM

bumper234 wrote: »

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.

With regard to this quote, you do know that Mr Justice Hardiman was the desenting voice against the decision, his point was that the Supreme court should not be makeing a decision in an area that is essentially one of government policy.
Hence his reference to the lack of legislation. He went on to say I think you will find that the government could enact such legislation under Artical 8.3 of the constitution.

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 10:35PM

GaelMise wrote: »

With regard to this quote, you do know that Mr Justice Hardiman was the desenting voice against the decision, his point was that the Supreme court should not be makeing a decision in an area that is essentially one of government policy.
Hence his reference to the lack of legislation. He went on to say I think you will find that the government could enact such legislation under Artical 8.3 of the constitution.

He also stated that the gentleman's request for an all Irish speaking jury was unconstitutional

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 02-03-2014 10:36PM

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.

A jury should be composed by as near as possible a reasonable cross section of Irish society, that being the case there should be nobody fluent in Irish on it and at least one person fluent in Polish.
Not rocket science, just law.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 10:36PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No i was deemed unconstitutional

You were deemed unconstitutional? :eek:
That sounds like it would have serious if somewhat vague impilcations.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 10:37PM

bumper234 wrote: »

He also stated that the gentleman's request for an all Irish speaking jury was unconstitutional

No, Justice Hardiman did not, that is why his was the disenting voice.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 02-03-2014 10:38PM

GaelMise wrote: »

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

Yea, they need a good laugh, comedy gold!

Iwasfrozen · 02-03-2014 10:40PM

GaelMise wrote: »

You were deemed unconstitutional? :eek:
That sounds like it would have serious if somewhat vague impilcations.

Yes quite,

"No *it 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."

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 10:40PM

GaelMise wrote: »

No, Justice Hardiman did not, that is why his was the disenting voice.

My apologies i misread. The fact stands that it WAS deemed unconstitutional by justice Frank Clark and the judgment was a 4 to 1 majority.

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 10:42PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Yea, they need a good laugh, comedy gold!

I think you will find that the ECHR take matter of human rights quite seriously.
I dont think you apreciate the significance of this ruleing, it sets a precident that your constitutional rights can be ignored by the state if they are incovinient to implement.
That was the basis of the states argument, and they won.

Fred Swanson · 02-03-2014 10:47PM

This post has been deleted.

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 10:48PM

GaelMise wrote: »

I think you will find that the ECHR take matter of human rights quite seriously.
I dont think you apreciate the significance of this ruleing, it sets a precident that your constitutional rights can be ignored by the state if they are incovinient to implement.
That was the basis of the states argument, and they won.

It's not his constitutional right to demand an all Irish speaking jury. He was offered the option of conducting his business in Irish via a translator and has turned down that option.

ahnowbrowncow · 02-03-2014 10:51PM

GaelMise wrote: »

I think you will find that the ECHR take matter of human rights quite seriously.
I dont think you apreciate the significance of this ruleing, it sets a precident that your constitutional rights can be ignored by the state if they are incovinient to implement.
That was the basis of the states argument, and they won.

No, the state won because it would be unconstitutional to omit 95% of the population from jury service just because some criminal, who speaks and understands English, wants the jury to be comprised of Irish speakers.

Skylinehead · 02-03-2014 11:19PM

GaelMise wrote: »

I think you will find that the ECHR take matter of human rights quite seriously.
I dont think you apreciate the significance of this ruleing, it sets a precident that your constitutional rights can be ignored by the state if they are incovinient to implement.
That was the basis of the states argument, and they won.

Human rights? What human rights are being broken here?

bumper234 · 02-03-2014 11:23PM

GaelMise wrote: »

I think you will find that the ECHR take matter of human rights quite seriously.
I dont think you apreciate the significance of this ruleing, it sets a precident that your constitutional rights can be ignored by the state if they are incovinient to implement.
That was the basis of the states argument, and they won.

How are his constitutional rights being ignored when his request has already been deemed to be unconstitutional?

GaelMise · 02-03-2014 11:59PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

I would still contend that the Government can make provision for this through legislation.

The basis for it being deemed 'unconstitutional' is that it that there is a constitutional imperative that a jury be representative.

However determining how this imperative is met is under the discression of the government:

Of course, the jury must be drawn from a pool broadly representative of the community so that its verdict will be stamped with the fairness and acceptability of a genuinely diffused community decision. The particular breath of choice necessary to satisfy this requirement cannot be laid down in advance. It is left to the discretion of the legislature to formulate a system for the compilation of jury lists and panels from which will be recruited juries which will be competent, impartial and representative.

Where a system of jury recruitment is assailed for being exclusionary to the point of unconstitutionality, the test is whether, by intent or operation, there is an exclusion of any class or group of citizens (other than those excluded for reasons based on capacity or social function) who, if included, might be expected to carry out their duties as jurors according to beliefs, standards or attitudes not represented by those included. If such a class or group is excluded it cannot be said that such a resulting jury will be representative of the community. The exclusion will leave untapped a reservoir of potential jurors without whom the jurors lists will lack constitutional completeness.

*Taken fom the text of the Supreme Court decision.

From the above I take it that the Government could bring in such a provision, and for such a provision to be held unconstitutional, it would have to be shown that Irish speakers as a group in society hold different beliefs, standards or attitudes to the community as a whole from where the Jury is drawn.

This is significant because the Government could decide to establish Gaeltacht areas as a cathcment area fo a Jury, in which case I would see it as being essentially impossible for such a divergence in beliefs, standards or attitudesto be shown.

bumper234 · 03-03-2014 12:10AM

GaelMise wrote: »

I would still contend that the Government can make provision for this through legislation.

The basis for it being deemed 'unconstitutional' is that it that there is a constitutional imperative that a jury be representative.

However determining how this imperative is met is under the discression of the government:

*Taken fom the text of the Supreme Court decision.

From the above I take it that the Government could bring in such a provision, and for such a provision to be held unconstitutional, it would have to be shown that Irish speakers as a group in society hold different beliefs, standards or attitudes to the community as a whole from where the Jury is drawn.

This is significant because the Government could decide to establish Gaeltacht areas as a cathcment area fo a Jury, in which case I would see it as being essentially impossible for such a divergence in beliefs, standards or attitudesto be shown.

And next time there is a murder in Dublin and someone decides they want an ALL IRISH SPEAKING jury the courts should bus a jury from Gaeltacht areas for a few weeks?

GaelMise · 03-03-2014 12:47AM

bumper234 wrote: »

And next time there is a murder in Dublin and someone decides they want an ALL IRISH SPEAKING jury the courts should bus a jury from Gaeltacht areas for a few weeks?

Why from the Gaeltacht? There are more Irish speakers in Dublin than Conemara.

Sierra 117 · 03-03-2014 12:58AM

I can't imagine Irish speakers being very happy at being called for jury service just because they can speak Irish. It would be very unfair.

bumper234 · 03-03-2014 08:02AM

GaelMise wrote: »

Why from the Gaeltacht? There are more Irish speakers in Dublin than Conemara.

I have lived in Dublin for over 30 years i know ONE person who speaks Irish fluently enough to hold a conversation and would be confident enough to listen to a court case. What difference would it make to this guys case if a translator were to translate his evidence into English for a jury?

Robbo · 03-03-2014 01:58PM

Too often, Irish language activists are portrayed as tweedy, academic types. Not this chap however, he sounds like a right action man. He's doing more to make the Irish language sexy than a greased up Hector ever could.

Per the charge sheets:

“On 28/05/2008 at Beal an Daingean, Leitir Móir, Galway in the said district court area of Doire an Fhéich, district number 7, assaulted one Martin Whelan causing him harm.
Contrary to section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997

and

on 28/05/2008 at Beal an Daingean, Leitir Móir, Galway within the said District Court area of Doire an Fhéich, district number 7, you did while committing assault on Martin Whelan in the course of a fight produced in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person an article capable of inflicting serious injury, to wit, a broken whiskey bottle,

contrary to section 11 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990.”

(Source).
5 Years maximum imprisonment on Indictment for each offence, so you can see why he's clinging to his language rights to the death. And of course, 6 years on there'll be issues of delay to be raised, perhaps even some unavailability of witnesses. That is provided, as advised by After Hours' finest international lawyers, that he doesn't appeal to the ECHR.

Beano · 03-03-2014 02:39PM

So lets just say hypothetically that this guy was allowed an all irish speaking jury. Would all prospective jurors have to do a test to prove their competence in the language? And if so who would get to decide that their level of irish was sufficient to follow a multi day trial? Could the defendant get to dismiss jurors if the didnt think their level of irish was sufficient?

bumper234 · 03-03-2014 02:44PM

Beano wrote: »

So lets just say hypothetically that this guy was allowed an all irish speaking jury. Would all prospective jurors have to do a test to prove their competence in the language? And if so who would get to decide that their level of irish was sufficient to follow a multi day trial? Could the defendant get to dismiss jurors if the didnt think their level of irish was sufficient?

The worse of it is this.

He want's to present HIS evidence in Irish and only wants Irish speaking people on the jury panel. When a witness is called who is not fluent in Irish is called then there would need to be a translator present anyway.

Beano · 03-03-2014 02:52PM

bumper234 wrote: »

The worse of it is this.

He want's to present HIS evidence in Irish and only wants Irish speaking people on the jury panel. When a witness is called who is not fluent in Irish is called then there would need to be a translator present anyway.

but surely a non irish speaking witness could just give their evidence in english. The defendant couldnt have any say over what language any witnesses use. After all it is the witnesses right to use any of the official languages of the state. So presumably an interpreter would be required to translate the witness testimony into Irish so the defendant could understand it. I'm really not seeing any problems with the workings of this AT ALL.

Robbo · 03-03-2014 02:59PM

bumper234 wrote: »

The worse of it is this.

He want's to present HIS evidence in Irish and only wants Irish speaking people on the jury panel. When a witness is called who is not fluent in Irish is called then there would need to be a translator present anyway.

Also, he was looking for the entire set of Circuit Court rules to be translated and made publicly available. For free.

GaelMise · 03-03-2014 10:56PM

Beano wrote: »

So lets just say hypothetically that this guy was allowed an all irish speaking jury. Would all prospective jurors have to do a test to prove their competence in the language? And if so who would get to decide that their level of irish was sufficient to follow a multi day trial? Could the defendant get to dismiss jurors if the didnt think their level of irish was sufficient?

I would imagine that they would use a similler system to that which they currently use to ensure that jurors have enough English to sit on a jury that opperates through English.

GaelMise · 03-03-2014 10:58PM

bumper234 wrote: »

The worse of it is this.

He want's to present HIS evidence in Irish and only wants Irish speaking people on the jury panel. When a witness is called who is not fluent in Irish is called then there would need to be a translator present anyway.

Have you actually got anything to back up your claims because from what I have read of the decision on the supreme court website, you are simply wrong on this.

bumper234 · 03-03-2014 11:02PM

GaelMise wrote: »

Have you actually got anything to back up your claims because from what I have read of the decision on the supreme court website, you are simply wrong on this.

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.

So what difference would this make to his case when a translator would be needed for any witnesses who are not fluent in Irish. Or do you believe their evidence should be dismissed as they cannot speak Irish?

annascott · 03-03-2014 11:09PM

No. I do not think he should have a bilingual jury. It isn't as if he cannot speak English. Speaking in Gaelic is a choice not a necessity. If he was from a different country and could not understand English, that would be different.

P. Breathnach · 03-03-2014 11:30PM

annascott wrote: »

No. I do not think he should have a bilingual jury.

Neither do I. But just to nit-pick: that's not what he was seeking; he wanted a jury that could function through Irish, and probably didn't care whether they spoke English or not.

It isn't as if he cannot speak English.

There are some Gaeltacht people whose command of English is much weaker than their command of Irish. If he is such a person, insisting that he function in English is unfair.

Speaking in Gaelic is a choice not a necessity.

It is also a right enshrined in the constitution. We have a right to deal with the institutions of the state in either of our two official languages, and we can individually choose which of them we use. [Personally, I am happy to use English in dealing with the state, but when I worked in the public service I was sometimes called on to deal with members of the public who preferred to use Irish. In some postings I was the only person with sufficient Irish to meet that need.]

If he was from a different country and could not understand English, that would be different.

It wouldn't be that different. The court would conduct its business in one of our two official languages (almost certainly English) and the person who did not speak English would be facilitated with a translator.

GaelMise · 04-03-2014 11:11AM

bumper234 wrote: »

So what difference would this make to his case when a translator would be needed for any witnesses who are not fluent in Irish. Or do you believe their evidence should be dismissed as they cannot speak Irish?

Sorry, but you are just talking bul**** at this stage, the case was to allow the defendant to be able to communicate with the Jury directally rather than to have to do so through an interperter.
It does not affect the witnesses at all, they can give evidence in either Irish or English, their choice. You can stick your head in the sand on this and try to come up with some bull**** excuse as to why this is not so, but it is.

Man loses Supreme Court case for bilingual jury

Comments