Clare Daly TD calls the Judiciary to account

[Diawlbach]

Surely the issue is not about a judicial review.

It is the much more fundamental one that she refers to of custom and practice in the family courts of ignoring the law and making it up as they go along. Is this not a legimate question for a TD to raise in the Dáil.

As you know when a family law case is heard in secret in the Circuit Court and then appealed to the secret family High Court it is not possible to then bring an appeal to the Supreme Court

No, it is not a legitimate question, because it is one arm of the State trying to breach the separation of powers.

And if you think something is being done unlawfully in the Circuit Court, your remedy is to apply for judicial review - strictly, an order of certiorari by way of judicial review - in the High Court, which JR case can be appealed to the Supreme Court should you wish. That is the issue - if you want to actually help people. If you want to sound off and act the maggot while helping no-one but your own PR, then you do what Clare Daly has done.

[Diawlbach]

It is not that simple. While a couple or a part of a couple might not want to have the case heard in camera, they might also not want the publicity which would accompany them being some sort of test case in court.

Which is, with respect, nonsense. "I want it heard in public, except when it might be heard in public?" Eh? And JRs aren't test cases. They're perfectly normal - there are the guts of 2,000 brought every year. It's about the higher Courts supervising the activities of lower tribunals.

[ShoutingIsLeadership]

If the combined estate is above a certain limit it has to go to a higher court anyway.

That's a fair caveat to add.

[sic transit]

The obvious question which then arise is - how do you know?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying we need a bit more rigour than, "Sure, everyone knows..."

Also not trying to assert truths where none can be proved but don't judges in general view childrens' place of residence as being in the family home which is more likely to be with their mother?

[Diawlbach]

I don't recall any constitutional amendment to Article 41.3.1, which states that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

Emmmm... Article 41.3.2? Inserted by the Divorce Referendum in 1995...?

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Yout...March_2010.pdf

[Diawlbach]

Also not trying to assert truths where none can be provided but don't judges in general view childrens' place of residence as being in the family home which is more likely to be with their mother?

I don't do enough family - thank Christ - to be able to comment on that other than anecdotally, so I'll have to pass on that one.

[ShoutingIsLeadership]

Which is, with respect, nonsense. "I want it heard in public, except when it might be heard in public?" Eh? And JRs aren't test cases. They're perfectly normal - there are the guts of 2,000 brought every year. It's about the higher Courts supervising the activities of lower tribunals.

To quote yourself - "If you want to sound off and act the maggot while helping no-one but your own PR....".

It is not nonsense. I might want to be treated fairly in an open court, but I might also not want every 2-bit reporter camped outside and inside the courtroom telling the country about the judicial review I have taken into the decision of a court to hold my case in camera.

[H.R. Haldeman]

It was grimly inevitable, but there is now contagion of cynicism. Last week it was wailing and gnashing of teeth about Revenue, today it's the Judiciary.

Never mind that Revenue are the most professional organ of the State or that the likes of Judge Peter Kelly are about the only ones trying to makes sense of our insane country. Nowadays, they're all becoming fair game.

Meh, I'm not necessarily saying Daly and Waters don't have a point on this narrow issue (although knowing the pair of them, I doubt it), but rather that we need to keep our eye on the real villains and gombeens and not just assume everything anyone conntected with the State does is rotten.

[ShoutingIsLeadership]

Emmmm... Article 41.3.2? Inserted by the Divorce Referendum in 1995...?

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Yout...March_2010.pdf

And this in what way changes the Constitution's beleif that the Family is based on Marriage?

[ppcoyle]

And if you think something is being done unlawfully in the Circuit Court, your remedy is to apply for judicial review - strictly, an order of certiorari by way of judicial review - in the High Court, which JR case can be appealed to the Supreme Court should you wish. That is the issue - if you want to actually help people. If you want to sound off and act the maggot while helping no-one but your own PR, then you do what Clare Daly has done.

Section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act (1939) as re-enacted by Section 48(1) and (9) of the Courts (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1963 provides that a decision of the High Court on appeal from the Circuit Court shall be final and conclusive and not appealable.

This is one of the exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 34.3.3 of the Constitution to hear an appeal from all decisions of the High Court.