Monthly Archives: April 2009
Given that they are close to the persons who make up the Rules Committee of the Superior Courts, they will be unlikely, currently or in the future, to direct any criticism or complaint at the work of the Committee.
Vibration would not be readily seen, by workers, as a danger to health in the workplace. It is, and the injury can be serious.
What has been happening in Ireland, after all in the case of the McCracken, Moriarty, Mahon, and Morris Tribunals, but the investigation of criminal conspiracies?
Why do some people respond to social problems by supporting provisions that deny, in effect, the existence of the problem (“right wing”) while others insist on the recognition and resolution, by society, of all problems (“left-wing”).
My post on audio recordings in Garda custody is about establishing the grounds for the making of adverse inferences at trial, not about the procedure for interrogation in Garda custody. Under Section 19A of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (as inserted by Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007), it is open to a court to make an adverse inference (of guilt; what else?) arising from …the failure of an accused to mention… [“…any fact relied on in his […]
“Continuous Professional Development” (CPD) is an idea with a banal element. It behooves everybody to stay on top of their job, and to express that in jargon is to suggest that the work of some people is beyond accountability; otherwise, why the need to nudge them to competence? Of course we know the work of some people is beyond accountability, but that is for another day and another subject. The Government’s new Bill on “Surveillance” is certainly a necessary topic […]
Neither the Government nor the Rules Committee of the Superior Courts have ever shown the slightest interest in facilitating litigation. In fact, the Government has positively legislated to obstruct and undermine personal litigants (as opposed to corporate litigants) from vindicating attacks on their rights or entitlements.
A toxic chemical is a poison. The poison may enter the body through the skin and not simply by the obvious routes of ingestion or breathing. Effects may not be immediate; a chemical may have a chronic effect, rather than an immediate acute effect.
Medical negligence litigation is unlike litigation generally. The cases throw up arguments about causation the like of which do not appear elsewhere.