Clare Daly TD calls the Judiciary to account

[ppcoyle]

It seems that Clare Daly TD has been attempting to have an alleged practice by some of our judges in the family courts brought into the public domain with little success. John Waters has a very interesting article on the topic in today’s Irish Times TD's reward for attempting to seek answers is silence - The Irish Times - Fri, Jan 13, 2012 .

Clare Daly has drawn attention to what may amount to “capricious and unlawful decisions” by our courts, writes JOHN WATERS

It would appear that prior to 2010, when the new Civil Partnership Act became law, some judges in the family courts have allegedly been dealing with certain disputes between co-habitants on an unlawful in camera basis. The Socialist Party TD’s attempts to have this matter investigated appear to have been stymied and/or met with indifference.

Apparently Clare Daly attempted to have a question raised in the Dáil about the matter, and has also issued a press statement on the matter. It seems that the Ceann Comhairle, Sean Barrett, wouldn’t allow her question because ‘the Minister for Justice has no responsibility in these matters’. This begs the important question ‘then who has?’, and how could Sean Barrett arrive at such a questionable decision?

It seems that it is now official that the family courts answer to no one, not even the Oireachtas and therefore the electorate. Well at least that much has been clarified by Clare Daly’s efforts. This has very serious implications for the proposed referendum on children’s rights.

One wonders whether this is an issue of concern to the other political parties or just the Socialist Party? Surely there is a major problem here, and also has major implications about the enforceability of judgments by the family courts which were based on the unlawful practice that Clare Daly refers to?

[antiestablishmentarian]

It seems that it is now official that the family courts answer to no one, not even the Oireachtas and therefore the electorate. Well at least that much has been clarified by Clare Daly’s efforts. This has very serious implications for the proposed referendum on children’s rights.

The courts never answered to the people or the Oireachtas. Power is separated in this jurisdiction.

[White Horse]

The CC is right, this is a matter for the courts not the Oireachtas.

If she wished to help, she should discuss this with the parties who are aggrieved and support them in a legal challenge.

[Diawlbach]

The courts never answered to the people or the Oireachtas. Power is separated in this jurisdiction.

Good luck getting the basic facts through. If you can manage it, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din...

[Diawlbach]

And, of course, the way to do this is quite simple; if you think having it heard in camera is wrong, Judicially Review any attempt to have it heard in camera. There are enough people who will happily do it no foal, no fee; and there are people like FLAC and PILA who'll help out, or at least point you in the right direction.

That, of course, would not get headlines for Clare Daly, so she's not going to bother actually doing something that might help.

[White Horse]

That, of course, would not get headlines for Clare Daly, so she's not going to bother actually doing something that might help.

That would appear to be her main motivation. The ULA are constantly in search of a media bandwagon to jump on.

[sic transit]

My impression of family cases is that they were always in camera to protect those involved and I see no issue with that at all. Why is it any business of Clare Daly or any of the rest of us how a family resolve their issues?

[ppcoyle]

The courts never answered to the people or the Oireachtas. Power is separated in this jurisdiction.

There is indeed the principle of 'separation of powers' but that does not mean that the courts are unanswerable to the electorate or that the courts can make up the law based on a 'legal fiction'.

It was Lincoln who stated in his Gettysburg Address 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people'. He put the citizen right at the centre of the process of government, not the courts.

[ShoutingIsLeadership]

My impression of family cases is that they were always in camera to protect those involved and I see no issue with that at all. Why is it any business of Clare Daly or any of the rest of us how a family resolve their issues?

Because this wonderful State of ours still does not recognise that a family can be anything other than a married couple and their children.

[Victor Meldrew]

Quoting John Waters in the IT article above

There was no basis in law for judges to decide to hold such family law cases in camera prior to 2010.

So these would have been cases where there are no kids involved, and cohabiting couple bought a house together. Because it is in-camera, does this mean that it is very hard to establish a precedent of previous rulings byo other judges, (sorry if not correct phrase).

Without sounding thick here, what sector of society / gender is getting shafted here?

We know family law courts are cruel to fathers.

As this is Clare Daly, I'm wondering what her angle or percieved abuse is here.

Can you refuse to have something heard in Camera? is there an advantage in it being public?