Clare Daly TD calls the Judiciary to account

[sultan]

Have we not had enough lack of accountability and abuse of authority in this country.?
While it is vital that the judiciary be separate from the Oireachtas, and this I assume, to avoid any interference or influence in decision making in the courts, I believe that, as with many issues here, we have taken this separation too far.
Judges are public servants and as such they must be accountable to the people who pay their salaries.
I believe the DPP too has overstepped his remit. It is imperative that he, on specific occasions, make known his reason for decisions that, to the lay man's eyes are wholly unacceptable.
Justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done, this, in many instances is not the case.
ALL WE ASK FOR IS ACCOUNTABILITY.

i have just read some of the post from the idiots defending the judges - unbelievable offensive and stupid comments. can somthing not be done to stop this drivel from them ----- no wonder solicitors are so hated by people.

[kbar2011]

I have just read some of the posts from the ignorant ill-informed idiots lambasting a system they know next to nothing about - unbelievably stupid and ignorant comments. Can something not be done to stop this drivel from them? No wonder imbeciles are treated with such scorn.

[ppcoyle]

Have we not had enough lack of accountability and abuse of authority in this country.?
While it is vital that the judiciary be separate from the Oireachtas, and this I assume, to avoid any interference or influence in decision making in the courts, I believe that, as with many issues here, we have taken this separation too far.
Judges are public servants and as such they must be accountable to the people who pay their salaries.
I believe the DPP too has overstepped his remit. It is imperative that he, on specific occasions, make known his reason for decisions that, to the lay man's eyes are wholly unacceptable.
Justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done, this, in many instances is not the case.
ALL WE ASK FOR IS ACCOUNTABILITY.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child state:

Article 9
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

Australia, just like Ireland, has a written constitution. So how has it dealt with its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Costly referendum? No. Interminable debates between a few ‘talking heads’ day after day on Marian Finucane, Frontline, or Tonight with VB? No.

Instead the Australian parliament and courts ignored the type of empty rhetoric that Irish parliamentarians and commentators use in connection with this issue, and took constructive action by simply reforming their family courts.

Included in the impetus for change was a recognition that the processes and procedures
used in the family court, and the broader legislative environment in which the court functioned, were not giving appropriate effect to Articles 9 and 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The enhanced importance now accorded to CRC in the family court through the implementation of the Less Adversarial Trial and Child Responsive Program (CRP) is detailed in this article……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Beyond an encouraging beginning toward its stated aim of achieving better outcomes for children, these family court initiatives give real and meaningful effect to the principles enshrined in Articles 9 and 12 of the CRC and to Australia’s commitments as a member of the wider international community that has ratified the CRC.

EVIDENCE OF A DIFFERENT NATURE: THE CHILD RESPONSIVE AND LESS ADVERSARIAL INITIATIVES OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA. Jennifer E. McIntosh, Hon. Diana Bryant, and Kristen Murray. FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 46 No. 1, January 2008 125–136

Diana Bryant is the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia.

Our Minister Shatter seems more concerned with condemning Irish people with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and getting riled about Ireland’s stance on neutrality during the Second World War than protecting children’s rights today. Even though the full horrors of what was happening in Europe could not be known to the people of Ireland in 1939 – no TV or SKY News, no internet, not many read newspapers, very limited radio coverage, no iphones with cameras and so on, the Minister is willing to condemn the Irish people of that time.

If he had taken the time to look at the Oireachtas website he would very easily have understood the context of the time in which the almost unanimous agreement by the political parties that neutrality was in the best interests of the country. Dil ireann - Volume 80 - 28 May, 1940 - Committee on Finance. - National Security—Ministerial Statement.

Maybe he should address himself to answering Clare Daly's questions instead of condemning his fellow countrymen while ignoring contextual factors.

There is no need for a referendum on children’s rights – just follow the standards set down by countries that are really concerned about the pragmatics of children’s right rather than the rhetoric. Our Constitution does contain all the necessary provisions to back up a reformed family court system with respect to children’s rights.

However, in light of Sean Barrett’s treatment of Clare Daly’s attempt to get at the heart of the problem with respect to children’s right and long term emotional well being – judicial corruption – it is highly unlikely that Minister Shatter will do anything constructive with respect to children’s rights other than continue to use rhetoric.

As James Dillon said in the Dáil in 1939 about the role of the judiciary in the scandal of the industrial schools http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1939/03/28/00013.asp

The Minister replies that he will not do it: that it might offend the presiding justices and that it would be a reflection on their discretion. I do not think that is the way to meet a restrained, moderate request for reassurance from somebody, however humble, who is a Deputy of this House. I claim no special privileges in this House beyond that of any other Deputy, but I consider that when a Deputy submits an interrogation to a Minister, asking for a reassurance, he is entitled to get it.
We have to remember that the proceedings in the Children's Court are of a semi-confidential character. One of the greatest safeguards of our liberty, where judicial proceedings of that kind take place, provided in any democratic State, is the right of parliamentary question to review and call in question what may be passing, as was done on a memorable occasion in the British House of Commons when justice was strikingly vindicated, when there was a danger of a grave miscarriage. When such questions are raised in a democratic Parliament the Minister should be solicitous to give all reasonable information even though he himself may feel that his questioner is unduly sensitive.

The comments of James Dillon in the Dáil debate show that by 1939 our courts and judges were starting to dramatically increase the number of children being sentenced to the industrial schools.

[wherethelady]

i think clare daly is eyeing up joe higgins spot as the national embarassment

[Franzoni]

i think clare daly is eyeing up joe higgins spot as the national embarassment

You would be in a good person to give her a few pointers so as your in the pole position on this forum for the same job....

[Baines]

Agree mayoonmymind ! And in fairness the Supreme Court is beginning to correct erroneous high court judgements eg the G case. And expect the removal from office of particular judges who flout fairness and justice in family law courts............

[sultan]

Agree mayoonmymind ! And expect the removal from office of particular judges who flout fairness and justice in family law courts............

i wouldnt hold my breath on that one-----------will never happen

[artfoley56]

Agree mayoonmymind ! And in fairness the Supreme Court is beginning to correct erroneous high court judgements eg the G case. And expect the removal from office of particular judges who flout fairness and justice in family law courts............

you do know that the SC affirmed the HC in the G case?

[Baines]

I think you're on the wrong page, Art, .....ref G case in Irish Times, Nov 7' 2011 " Supreme Court strikes down family law orders as excessive" .."........hardly affirmative of HC !

[artfoley56]

I think you're on the wrong page, Art, .....ref G case in Irish Times, Nov 7' 2011 " Supreme Court strikes down family law orders as excessive" .."........hardly affirmative of HC !

Supreme Court upholds ruling in Mr G case - National News, Breaking News - Independent.ie