legal eagles doc on rte

however if the legal system was run on a more normal basis i dont think there would be a requirement for half of them

What do you mean by "normal"? Ignoring some of the more anachronistic/archaic practices and conventions I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the judicial trial system as it stands.
 
>>Ignoring some of the more anachronistic/archaic practices and conventions I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the judicial trial system as it stands

It's precisely these anachronistic practices that are most problematic. For instance, your solicitor cannot represent you in court, you need a barrister. This doubles the number of personnel required for simple cases. And it probably more than doubles the legal bills.
 
Fair enough. But I just wasn't sure what specifically setanta thought "abnormal" about the current judicial/trial system.
 
Any common practice is by definition "normal." Let's not get too bogged down with the semantics, it's obvious he was talking about a "better" legal system rather than a "normal" one.
 
pompous and and condescending would be two words that spring to mind. p***ks is a third one..

Yeah sorry. It was obviously a reasonable contribution from setanta all right... :rolleyes
 
lawyers in court

"For instance, your solicitor cannot represent you in court, you need a barrister. This doubles the number of personnel required for simple cases. And it probably more than doubles the legal bills"

This isn't true. Solicitors have a right of audience in all courts.

Most simple cases are dealt with in the District Court, by solicitors acting alone. Barristers are rare in the District Court (except in Dublin, where very junior barristers do a fair bit of work).

In the Circuit Court, it is common for there to be a solicitor and barrister, but a solicitor handling a case without a barrister would not raise too many eyebrows.

In the High Court, a solicitor handling a case without a barrister would probably raise a few eyebrows, but it does happen from time to time.
 
Re: lawyers in court

Hi MOB.

In relation to the raising of eyebrows in relation to level of representation. If I am summonsed to a district court for speeding offence, and I choose to represent myself. (eg: "your honour I am sorry"), is it not a known fact that I would suffer a more severe penalty than if I had brought a solicitor to represent me (eg: "your honour, he is sorry")?

I know for a fact that this is the case and find it completely unfair and indicative of a closed-shop.
 
Re: lawyers in court

Hi Ocras - I've heard the total opposite - that bringing in your solicitor for minor offences is more likely to get right up the judge's nose and increase the penalty.
 
wrote -
Hi Ocras - I've heard the total opposite - that bringing in your solicitor for minor offences is more likely to get right up the judge's nose and increase the penalty.
Click to expand...
Don't be spouting this in front of the Economist surveyors.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Rule of Law in Ireland - representation of an accused by practitoners of law absolves jurists from adherence to impartiality.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Brill!
 
Hi Rainyday, I must've got a bad one on a bad day then, and it was a couple of years ago. But honestly, in discussion afterwards, I got the feedback that others felt the same. So it probably depends on the DJ?

MOB, I wasn't picking, I would love to hear a solicitors viewpoint on my perception, as you have probably frequented the courts more than I.
 
Actually Ocras I rarely if ever go to court. My work mostly involves selling buying and dying.

I don't think people who represent themselves are fined more heavily in the District Court, but I don't go to enough District courts to be authoritative in this opinion; I have been in the District Court perhaps 30 or 40 times in 12 years. I think that defendants who neither turn up nor get a solicitor to represent them might get more heavily fined for ordinary motoring offences. You might interpret this as the judge sticking up for the legal profession, but I think that it is simply a manifestation of judicial displeasure at the discourtesy shown to the court.
 
thanks extopia. Better system as against normal is what I was trying to say (poorly) Why does it take so long for cases to come to court in Ireland? How do some cases run the full length and then the judge discovers ( or has pointed out to him) that the case should never have been heard in the first instance. I say this because I was/am very suspicious of the case of the judge in Cork who was charged with child pornography. The trial judge managed to dismiss that case within 5 minutes of it starting, yet I have seen details of cases where after days and days of evidence the case was thrown out on a technicality. Personally I suspect that the trial judge didnt want all the details to come out so found an early exit clause for the other judge. consider the length of time it takes even (an apparantly)open and shut case to come to trial in this country with say Australia, where the person who was charged with burning down the youth hostel was convicted and sentenced within a few months of capture. Wouldn't have happend here within 2 years. Just look at yesterdays papers re that person charged with murdering his father or indeed the annabel case. 2 years min before anything even gets to court. We get what we deserve.
 
...

How does a case being disposed of in a short time equate to a better judicial system? I would have thought it be the other way around.
 
Re: ...

yet I have seen details of cases where after days and days of evidence the case was thrown out on a technicality.

Surely part of due process involves hearing the evidence before drawing conclusions? If, as part of the presentation of evidence, certain breaches of technicalities come to light then, and only then, can action be taken. I don't see how it's meaningful to constrast different cases on the basis that technicalities come to light early on in some and only later on in others.

Personally I suspect that the trial judge didnt want all the details to come out so found an early exit clause for the other judge.

Without getting into libel/slander/defamation, on what evidence do you base your suspicions?

consider the length of time it takes even (an apparantly)open and shut case to come to trial in this country with say Australia, where the person who was charged with burning down the youth hostel was convicted and sentenced within a few months of capture. Wouldn't have happend here within 2 years. Just look at yesterdays papers re that person charged with murdering his father or indeed the annabel case. 2 years min before anything even gets to court. We get what we deserve.

Again I don't see how picking individual cases (from different juristictions no less) and comparing them in terms of how long it takes to apprehend the suspect(s), investigate the alleged crime and pursue prosecution is meaningful. You might want to be careful with what you say about trials/appeals that are imminent or in train by the way!
 
Re: ...

Clubman: I am trying to be careful. the point I am trying to make is that a big and slow and combersome (?) and fairly antiquated system is manna from heaven for the barristers who feed on such a system. Is there any other country in the whole wide world where the barristers earn so much out of so little?
 
Re: ...

I was amused by the comments of one of the most senior barristers...was it Keane?...he mentioned that even though he was one of the most expensive in the profession he was required to do Free Legal Aid work. This (he suggested) showed how fair our legal system is, in that even the poorest can get the best representation.

Sounds wonderful, but then you have to consider how this works in reality. Some scumbag who burgles your house can get the best in the land ('cos its free to him) while you...a middle class shmuck...are forced to pay for whatever you can afford and hope for the best.

Fair?

I think not.
 
..

why would you need legal representation if someone burgles your house?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top