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

Brid Smith comments on High Court Judge

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,248 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    maestroamado wrote: »
    He did ask the question and Michael Martin acknowledeged that in the article, it may be the press told lies as you say.

    So we Cabinet of Ministers with collective accountability for the running of our country.
    Then we have one of these people going to court in front of the Judges they appoint to office to complain about false reporting by the Gardai.
    The reason for going to court is to question the details of arrest before he accepted whatever penalty imposed.
    The reason he can ask the question is because it did not go to court 4

    years earlier the case was not contested.
    Also Mr Cowan was also a legislator at the time of the offence, he was mature person? around 50 driving on a provisional license and he turned away from the checkpoint.
    So these are the people who we want to run our country.
    I think you should have a glass of something strong...

    I find it difficult to u derstand the point you are making in relation to separation of powers and the comparison between Cowen and Smith.


  • Options
    #93
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,557 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Cowen going through the courts rather than the press is the correct way to do it.


  • Options
    #94
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Cowen going through the courts rather than the press is the correct way to do it.


    Michael Martin said thats why he was sacked...


  • Options
    #95
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,730 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Michael Martin said thats why he was sacked...

    Doesnt change the fact that hes pursuing the correct course of action to find out how his records were leaked and have them amended to show what in his opinion actually happened.

    Or would you prefer he stand up in the dail to continuously bad mouth the gardai using his platform as a TD and literally do exactly what you seem to be complaining about.


  • Options
    #96
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Doesnt change the fact that hes pursuing the correct course of action to find out how his records were leaked and have them amended to show what in his opinion actually happened.

    Or would you prefer he stand up in the dail to continuously bad mouth the gardai using his platform as a TD and literally do exactly what you seem to be complaining about.


    The point is he did badmouth the Gardai after the Sunday article in the times which was a hugh error on his part, if he had said nothing it would likely have drifted into history.
    I thought this was over so there be a court case pending between Mr Cowan and the Gardai?
    His opinion in my opinion is irellevant 4 years after the incident, if he wins the case it will set a precident going forward for anyone arrested.
    I be very surprised if this ever goed to court.
    He is still a TD though very quiet, the biggest mistake he made was taking on Gardai version of arrest after he turned away from checkpoint.
    If he had said nothing he be Minister today.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Randy Archer
    Registered Users Posts: 859 ✭✭✭Randy Archer


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Michael Martin said thats why he was sacked...

    He, he was sacked because he refused to make a public statement because he’s going to the courts . He stayed silent and refused to answer questions . Something very fishy about this case , who leaked this information out to the media. Cowen must have enemies or someone was out to harm and embarrass Martin. Something tells me FF is going to have some internal upheaval

    Nothing unprecedented about challenging the Gardai by way of judicial review over records


  • Options
    #98
    Randy Archer
    Registered Users Posts: 859 ✭✭✭Randy Archer


    maestroamado wrote: »
    So its perfectly ok for a serving Minister (senior legislator) to challenge circumstances of his arrest of 4 years after event in court?
    The initial complainer in this thread was the serving Minister for Justice at the time.

    You seem to know more about this than me so you can explain...

    In his personal capacity , yes .

    Nothing wrong with it. His dispute is with the GARDAI and not the courts . By your logic, the Gardai can not charge and prosecute a TD in his personal capacity before the courts .

    4 years ? So what ? Some Legal procedures have a statute of limitation period of 6 years . I don’t know what procedure cowen is using so not sure if he’s within time or not .


  • Options
    #99
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Randy Archer wrote: »
    In his personal capacity , yes .

    Nothing wrong with it. His dispute is with the GARDAI and not the courts . By your logic, the Gardai can not charge and prosecute a TD in his personal capacity before the courts .

    4 years ? So what ? Some Legal procedures have a statute of limitation period of 6 years . I don’t know what procedure cowen is using so not sure if he’s within time or not .


    The time to challenge the decision was at the time but he accepted the penalty and now wants to go to court 4 years on.
    If he was unhappy he should have challenged the penalty at the time.
    I never hesard of anyone accecpting a penalty and later going to the courts to challenge at a later time.
    I do believe that the norm is we accept and pay whatever penalty or go to the courts and challenge.
    The legal professjion will have a great time if this challenge d=succeeds in the courts. It will not go to court because of this in my view...


  • Options
    #100
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Randy Archer wrote: »
    He, he was sacked because he refused to make a public statement because he’s going to the courts . He stayed silent and refused to answer questions . Something very fishy about this case , who leaked this information out to the media. Cowen must have enemies or someone was out to harm and embarrass Martin. Something tells me FF is going to have some internal upheaval

    Nothing unprecedented about challenging the Gardai by way of judicial review over records


    Michael Martin said he was sacked because he took the court option.
    The internal politics is for FF and Martin to sort...


  • Options
    #101
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,041 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Michael Martin said he was sacked because he took the court option.
    The internal politics is for FF and Martin to sort...

    I get your point and there is merit. I note the article you posted before did say that Micheál did say that he wanted it to go the political route rather than the legal route. This wasn’t in quotes and appears to be an opinion of the writer. I didn’t see that opined in any other article or indeed speech. To me the reason it appears that he was sacked as minister was he refused to answer questions and lost the faith of his leader.

    But interestingly what has transpired is that because he is dismissed as a minister and continuing his case as a private individual he is respecting the separation of powers.

    In the Brid Smith case she attacked a judge. In the Cowen case he is questioning the Gardai (which is not part of the limbs of the state that separation of powers protects). You have raised some good points and I am sorry if I didn’t respect that. But, if you agree this thread mightn’t be the best place to discuss them as it could confuse the thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    a very cool kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭a very cool kid


    maestroamado wrote: »
    The time to challenge the decision was at the time but he accepted the penalty and now wants to go to court 4 years on.
    If he was unhappy he should have challenged the penalty at the time.
    I never hesard of anyone accecpting a penalty and later going to the courts to challenge at a later time.
    I do believe that the norm is we accept and pay whatever penalty or go to the courts and challenge.
    The legal professjion will have a great time if this challenge d=succeeds in the courts. It will not go to court because of this in my view...

    What has this got to do with separation of powers between the judiciary and the parliament or executive?

    Cowen was sacked rightly because he wouldn't make a public statement on leaks that occurred.

    He is entitled to chase through the courts details of how those details were leaked as they should not have been.

    Bríd Smith effectively said a judge was corrupt and had no place being a judge. As she is a legislator she has no place commenting on the status or ability of a member of the judiciary.

    This is effectively what the Polish Government has been doing the past couple of years which has diminished their status in Europe and erodes the rule of law and by extension the democracy. She should have been forced to resign.

    The judiciary have to be allowed complete their job to interpret the law as it stands free of political inference.


  • Options
    #103
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,557 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    maestroamado wrote: »
    The time to challenge the decision was at the time but he accepted the penalty and now wants to go to court 4 years on.
    If he was unhappy he should have challenged the penalty at the time.
    I never hesard of anyone accecpting a penalty and later going to the courts to challenge at a later time.
    I do believe that the norm is we accept and pay whatever penalty or go to the courts and challenge.
    The legal professjion will have a great time if this challenge d=succeeds in the courts. It will not go to court because of this in my view...

    He's not challenging the penalty.


  • Options
    #104
    Randy Archer
    Registered Users Posts: 859 ✭✭✭Randy Archer


    maestroamado wrote: »
    The time to challenge the decision was at the time but he accepted the penalty and now wants to go to court 4 years on.
    If he was unhappy he should have challenged the penalty at the time.
    I never hesard of anyone accecpting a penalty and later going to the courts to challenge at a later time.
    I do believe that the norm is we accept and pay whatever penalty or go to the courts and challenge.
    The legal professjion will have a great time if this challenge d=succeeds in the courts. It will not go to court because of this in my view...

    Do you know precisely what he is actually challenging ? No and it’s blatantly clear that you don’t .

    We will have to wait until the court case is determined


  • Options
    #105
    Randy Archer
    Registered Users Posts: 859 ✭✭✭Randy Archer


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Michael Martin said he was sacked because he took the court option.
    The internal politics is for FF and Martin to sort...

    Because..... Martin wanted him to speak up in the Dail instead (And still take his case to court later if need be) . Ie close this case up there and then So Martin can have peace . Typical political short term attitude


  • Options
    #106
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    I be very surprised if this ever goes to court though it be interesting if it does.
    The Gardai will do a vague report and that be end of it.
    Cowan went into hiding for a few weeeks but he is back in print this week....


  • Options
    #107
    Randy Archer
    Registered Users Posts: 859 ✭✭✭Randy Archer


    maestroamado wrote: »
    I be very surprised if this ever goes to court though it be interesting if it does.
    The Gardai will do a vague report and that be end of it.
    Cowan went into hiding for a few weeeks but he is back in print this week....

    Gardai do a “vague report” will be music to Cowan’s ears . That would be precisely the grounds he’s be looking for in a Judicial Review

    The case has been lodged, “it’s going to court”

    Chief State May settle this instead if Cowen has good grounds of winning


  • Options
    #108
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Randy Archer wrote: »
    Gardai do a “vague report” will be music to Cowan’s ears . That would be precisely the grounds he’s be looking for in a Judicial Review

    The case has been lodged, “it’s going to court”

    Chief State May settle this instead if Cowen has good grounds of winning


    Just because its lodged as goung to court does not mean a Judicial Review. For me he will discredit the Gardai if it goes to court so if this happens the Justice department are also discredited if a serving Gardai lied in a report of an incident.

    I think a Judicial Review can only be for something that has being through the courts and this hasn't as he accepted at the time.
    It was only when the article appeared about the Uturn that he questioned the report, if he had stayed quiet he likely be Minister today.
    I expect he knows he made a blunder, there is a lot going on in his area at thhe moment and he is nowhere to be seen and he is right this time.


  • Options
    #109
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Just because its lodged as goung to court does not mean a Judicial Review. For me he will discredit the Gardai if it goes to court so if this happens the Justice department are also discredited if a serving Gardai lied in a report of an incident.

    I think a Judicial Review can only be for something that has being through the courts and this hasn't as he accepted at the time.
    It was only when the article appeared about the Uturn that he questioned the report, if he had stayed quiet he likely be Minister today.
    I expect he knows he made a blunder, there is a lot going on in his area at thhe moment and he is nowhere to be seen and he is right this time.

    In the history of the gardai this is relatively minor. They have had far bigger scandals in their history. It should be possible to bring the gardai to court. They are not above the law. In any organisation you are going to have a few bad eggs and it's important that they be rooted out and by judicial means if necessary.

    Bringing a garda to court over a mistake and critising a judge on personal characteristics are two different things. Now if Cowen took a court case on the basis that the qualified garda who caught him was say from X ethnicity or some other personal characteristic and therefore because of that characteristic had no right to pull him over, that's when we would be getting into Brid Smith territory and her complaint about the judge in question.


  • Options
    #110
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    The only comparasion is Brid Smith made an error and Minister for Justice commented.
    Cowan made an error and he had pretty well unanimous support.


  • Options
    #111
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Haven't really been following this thread much (read as at all) but she's a point here.

    https://twitter.com/bridsmithTD/status/1296760601516138498?s=19


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    selectamatic
    Registered Users Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭selectamatic


    While she has somewhat of a point regarding judges personal relationships with politicians potentially causing a conflict of interest in a professional setting.

    You would need to be offering proof of such instances occuring not merely throwing out accusations just because a ruling goes against you.

    Brid Smith also flouted restrictions when she attended a mass protest in Dublin back in June so she hasn't a non hypocritical leg to stand on with regards to covid restrictions and leading by example either.


  • Options
    #113
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    selectamatic wrote: »
    While she has somewhat of a point regarding judges personal relationships with politicians potentially causing a conflict of interest in a professional setting.

    You would need to be offering proof of such instances occuring not merely throwing out accusations just because a ruling goes against you.

    Brid Smith also flouted restrictions when she attended a mass protest in Dublin back in June so she hasn't a non hypocritical leg to stand on with regards to covid restrictions and leading by example either.

    There hasn't been a ruling against her yet, and she never mentioned the covid restrictions being broken, her point was (and you said you agreed with her "somewhat") the judges-politician (and to a certain extent members of the media who are supposed to be holding politicians to account) conflict of interest.


  • Options
    #114
    thomas 123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,631 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    McMurphy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a ruling against her yet, and she never mentioned the covid restrictions being broken, her point was (and you said you agreed with her "somewhat") the judges-politician (and to a certain extent members of the media who are supposed to be holding politicians to account) conflict of interest.

    100% a conflict of interest, they appear to be members of the same society/club, honestly the stone masons in the Simpsons appears less far fetched.

    Imagine your in court and the judge over the case was out for pints with one of the parties the weekend before...

    Beggars belief really.


  • Options
    #115
    selectamatic
    Registered Users Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭selectamatic


    McMurphy wrote: »
    There hasn't been a ruling against her yet, and she never mentioned the covid restrictions being broken, her point was (and you said you agreed with her "somewhat") the judges-politician (and to a certain extent members of the media who are supposed to be holding politicians to account) conflict of interest.

    I meant my post in reference to the initial ruling she disagreed with which sparked her comment. I should have worded my post better.


  • Options
    #116
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    selectamatic wrote: »
    I meant my post in reference to the initial ruling she disagreed with which sparked her comment.

    Ok fair enough, as I said I have not been following this thread at all (have noticed the thread title before though) and her tweet made a good point.


  • Options
    #117
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,730 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    thomas 123 wrote: »
    100% a conflict of interest, they appear to be members of the same society/club, honestly the stone masons in the Simpsons appears less far fetched.

    Imagine your in court and the judge over the case was out for pints with one of the parties the weekend before...

    Beggars belief really.


    Well in that case if the judge hadn't made the conflict known and possibly recused themselves depending on how close a relationship there then if it was found out after the fact the case would be appealed and thrown out.....


Advertisement