Supreme Court strikes down underage sex law

[Simbo67]

1) Why did McDowell and the department not know about this case? A serious question in itself
2) Why did McDowell have no specific legislation for the cabinet this morning?

How would that have prevented the release of the pervert by the high court today. Justice ministers going back over a decade are as much to blame as mcdowell

Well nothing would have done that as there is no scope for retroactive application of the law but you did not answer the questions which are pretty serious.

This case has been in front of the supreme court for 2 years, the Department of Justice did not know about it?! That is a crazy position.

[jjcarroll]

1) Why did McDowell and the department not know about this case? A serious question in itself
2) Why did McDowell have no specific legislation for the cabinet this morning?

How would that have prevented the release of the pervert by the high court today. Justice ministers going back over a decade are as much to blame as mcdowell

And for that decade, how long has McDowell been Minister for Justice or Attorney General?

[Simbo67]

1) Why did McDowell and the department not know about this case? A serious question in itself
2) Why did McDowell have no specific legislation for the cabinet this morning?

How would that have prevented the release of the pervert by the high court today. Justice ministers going back over a decade are as much to blame as mcdowell

And for that decade, how long has McDowell been Minister for Justice or Attorney General?

A doubly crazy position given that McDowell held both offices since circa 2000 (AG from about 2000 and Justice Minister since 2002)!
Remember this case was appealed from the high court to the supreme court.

[Catalpa]

However if it is unconstitutional then why not have a Constitutional Referendum so that anyone over a certain age gap between offender and victim can be legally prosecuted and not be able to plead ignorance on the age of the person they committed the offense against?

That's a ridiculously simplistic view of the situation.

What bugs me most about all of this is that the media, an people on the street, don't seem to be able to comprehend whats going on.

For instance, Matt Cooper posed the question at the top of his programme earlier: "Could this lead to a mass exodus of paedophiles from prison?" (or words to that effect)

"Criminal Law for Dummies" would have told him that there was no way in hell that could ever happen, yet Cooper made the sensationalist (and very dangerous) claim nonetheless

No it isn't, it's Common Sense. Not one of your strong points I know.

[cyberianpan]

Funny stuff happens with laws.... it happens but:

Btw what happened the notion of a separate minsiter for Law Reform ? I know that it was specifically created for Mervyn Taylor...

Even though I think that McDowell is a creature from the pits of hell I will say in fairness that his department is unwieldy. Administering the operation of justice, policing etc is job enough for one person. Look at the piddly job Willie O'Dea has by comparison ?

cYp

[Simbo67]

Funny stuff happens with laws.... it happens but:

Btw what happened the notion of a separate minsiter for Law Reform ? I know that it was specifically created for Mervyn Taylor...

Even though I think that McDowell is a creature from the pits of hell I will say in fairness that his department is unwieldy. Administering the operation of justice, policing etc is job enough for one person. Look at the piddly job Willie O'Dea has by comparison ?

cYp

This can not be a serious argument though? What about Ministerial responsibility? Collective Cabinet responsibility? This is what representative parliamentary governments are meant to be based upon?!??

[cyberianpan]

Funny stuff happens with laws.... it happens but:

Btw what happened the notion of a separate minsiter for Law Reform ? I know that it was specifically created for Mervyn Taylor...

Even though I think that McDowell is a creature from the pits of hell I will say in fairness that his department is unwieldy. Administering the operation of justice, policing etc is job enough for one person. Look at the piddly job Willie O'Dea has by comparison ?

cYp

This can not be a serious argument though? What about Ministerial responsibility? Collective Cabinet responsibility? This is what representative parliamentary governments are meant to be based upon?!??

One issue is whether the Govt is to blame, I have to say that the commentariat who are now so vocal didn't put this issue at the top of the priority list until just a week ago ? But whether they are are not I claim that this ought be considered:

I think there is a case to be made for separating functions , the current minister for Justice has too much to look at (immigration,policy, justice operations) without even considering law reforms. You could well split the post into 2 & either of the posts would have more staff/importance than say Defence.

cYp

[Simbo67]

Funny stuff happens with laws.... it happens but:

Btw what happened the notion of a separate minsiter for Law Reform ? I know that it was specifically created for Mervyn Taylor...

Even though I think that McDowell is a creature from the pits of hell I will say in fairness that his department is unwieldy. Administering the operation of justice, policing etc is job enough for one person. Look at the piddly job Willie O'Dea has by comparison ?

cYp

This can not be a serious argument though? What about Ministerial responsibility? Collective Cabinet responsibility? This is what representative parliamentary governments are meant to be based upon?!??

One issue is whether the Govt is to blame, I have to say that the commentariat who are now so vocal didn't put this issue at the top of the priority list until just a week ago ? But whether they are are not I claim that this ought be considered:

I think there is a case to be made for separating functions , the current minister for Justice has too much to look at (immigration,policy, justice operations) without even considering law reforms. You could well split the post into 2 & either of the posts would have more staff/importance than say Defence.

cYp

Is this even relevant to what we are talking about? The govt was in the dark on this topic. Why? On your point, if he felt that he would not be able to manage a dept then he should not have taken the post.
There are departments with much bigger staff/budgets (health, education). Should we split all departments so we have 50 junior ministers?

You did not deal with the issues I raised about why the govt was in the dark about this, the responsibility and finally why did McDowell have nothing specific to bring to cabinet this morning?

[cyberianpan]

The govt was in the dark on this topic. Why?

Yep but where was everyone else ? This law was public domain, had been discussed in the early '90's. As for procedural issues relating to the courts ... worth getting to the bottom of but not the central issue here. Which is that we've had a dodgy law on the books since 1935.

I've previously proposed on this thread that as a first step we ought ring fence "tier 1" laws - i.e. those that protect individuals & their liberty & go through them where they are substantially dated pre 1970. Also I literally mean to put them into a big book. Make it clear that the laws in the big book must be good & are ones that ought get higher scrutiny & preference.

On your point, if he felt that he would not be able to manage a dept then he should not have taken the post.

I agree , if you offered McDowell any power he'd take it. However it is also up to the citizenry & others to decide what form the executive ought take.

There are departments with much bigger staff/budgets (health, education). Should we split all departments so we have 50 junior ministers?

Specifically I used as a benchmark DOD, both new ministries would be larger. Justice has been split before & ought be scrutinised closely.

why did McDowell have nothing specific to bring to cabinet this morning?

The AG's office, parlimentary draftmen etc move very , very slowly & cautiously. Wanting answers immediately in matters of law is understandable, getting them might be criminal.

cYp

[stringjack]

In fairness to the poster, it would seem more appropriate that those individuals who are employed (and well paid) by the state in the Attorney General's office would keep an eye on the laws of this state which might be subject to successful challenge, rather than posters on politics.ie.

Which laws would those be, exactly? What criteria have you got in mind?

McDowell said that the DPP had "carriage" of the Supreme Court case. Neither he nor anyone in Justice had any knowledge of the pending case. Bizarrely, McDowell told RTE that he does not know if the AG knew that it was an issue before the SC. It surely was a question to ask him at the Cabinet meeting today.

Right... Exactly how much involvement do you think politically partisan officials should have with prosecutions?

Apparently, the Law Reform Commission had recommended in the 90's that the 1935 law be changed.

Really?

The AG at least should be aware of what is coming before the Supreme Court and most cases are on the hearing schedule for many months. The 5 Supreme Court Justices are hardly the only Senior Counsel who had doubts about the law. At least, the outlines of a Bill could have been drafted.

I agree that the AG should follow the cases arriving before the Supreme Court; however, I think it would be a monumental waste of his or her time to be involved in preemptively drafting legislation to account for every possible decision the Supreme Court might make. If you imagine that it would have been a simple task to draft a bill to account for the Court's decision without knowing the details of that decision, I invite you to read the judgement and then read any reasonably complex piece of legislation. Furthermore, if a great many SCs had doubts about the constitutionality of this law, I expect there have been numerous examples of them challenging it in the course of their business over the past seventy odd years.

As with the UK Home Office, it's another case of people who don't have to take responsibility, asleep at the switch.

1) Why did McDowell and the department not know about this case? A serious question in itself

Is it? Why?

2) Why did McDowell have no specific legislation for the cabinet this morning?

Have you ever read a piece of legislation?