Public speeches or comments by politicians should always be seen in that context.

One is reminded of the history of waste disposal and control in Ireland. Local Authorities were the regulators of waste disposal and were the greatest offenders; their sewage, alone, was a source of great damage and offence.

These are my thoughts as I note that, shortly, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (“MJELR”) will disclose his plans for conformity with the IMF/EU “reforms” of the legal professions.

As I understand it, the professed intention is to eliminate wasteful costs.

To that end, the Minister could do worse than have a word with his fellow EU Ministers for Justice about extradition.

Surely the provisions of Section 11 of the Extradition (European Union Conventions) Act 2001 need adjusting?

They are too low.

Many offenders in Ireland, guilty of an offence falling within the terms (but not the application) of Section 11 would qualify for the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907.

What the EU states have done is this; they have resolved to spend money without reserve in pursuit of EU citizens who have collided with State power. They are saying there will be no opportunity to escape the State, regardless of the triviality of the offence.

Who pays for this? Well, in Ireland, the taxpayers pay and the MJELR spends that money enthusiastically.

When Ireland receives a warrant from another EU state for the extradition of a person a very costly process is commenced. This should happen in appropriate cases, but not in inappropriate cases.

It can, and does happen, that extradition requests are made in cases where the “absconder” received a suspended sentence.

Does the MJELR keep a horse? Does he not notice he needs to clean his stables?

These conversations can have odd aspects; one lawyer (A) may wish to speak “without prejudice” and the other lawyer (B) may not share that desire, for the things that he/she has to say. B may speak expressly on those terms.

Are the banal, uncontroversial terms of B not to be disclosed to a court?

Irish judges, particularly in the lower courts, are not receptive to submissions that some or all elements of “without prejudice” discussions may be disclosed to the court.

In Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Limited and others [2010] UKSC 44 the UK Supreme Court examined a particular basis on which evidence of “without prejudice” discussions could be admitted. (To aid in the interpretation of an agreement between the parties).

The Court, in its judgment, referred to Investors Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28; [1998] 1 All ER 98; [1998] 1 WLR 896, also a case turning on document interpretation. Here is a sample from it;

“Secondly, the parenthesis seemed very strange against the background of the law. If it was exhaustive, why was “sounding in rescission for undue influence” singled out? What about rescission on other grounds, or claims for breach of statutory or common law duty? It was rather like providing in a lease of a flat that the tenant should not keep “any pets (whether neutered Persian cats or otherwise).” Something seemed to have gone wrong.”

And again:

“The “rule” that words should be given their “natural and ordinary meaning” reflects the common sense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly in formal documents. On the other hand, if one would nevertheless conclude from the background that something must have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute to the parties an intention which they plainly could not have had.”

By Irish standards this last point is hard to take. After all, we have the leader of our Executive addicted to the phrase, “…going forward”. His predecessor’s mode of expression was sufficiently eccentric, closed and personal as to be representative of a type; Bertiespeak.

Our politicians fall, consistently, into solecisms. (Our Minister for Justice etc. tells us persistently that he will appraise his ministerial colleagues; would that he did, and let us honestly know the outcome).

To cleave to the standards of the UK courts would lead to apoplexy. No, no; that’s too much.

That said, we should fight against a complete absence of standards.

Save the word “presently”; it does not mean “currently”.

Save the word “refute”; it does not mean “reject”.

Save the word “pleaded”; there is no word “pled”.

We see a commendation in similar terms from Professor Donal Byard of New York in the Irish Times (HERE).

Now we need only await the usual sullen silence by way of response.

This being a blog, a posting will have to suffice.

His musings were followed by a proposal from the Minister for Justice, the terms of which are currently obscure.

Assuming that there is no co-ordination between the Minister for Justice and the DPP, and assuming them to be decent, well-meaning office holders, why do these pronouncements appear as if the speaker was the first to address the problem?

The Labour Party tabled a Whistleblower’s Bill and it went nowhere. It was within the power of the Minister’s party to drive it, or to kill it. It was killed.

Transparency International has compiled a review of the lack of protection for whistleblowers in Ireland. See it HERE.

Transparency International recommend one single piece of legislation to protect (and promote) whistleblowing. As they point out, the UK did exactly that in 1998 with the Public Interest Disclosure Act. See it HERE
.
Of particular interest to this blog (we are personal injury lawyers, albeit multi-tasking) are the provisions of Section 27 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. See it HERE.

Now read the obligations imposed on employees HERE by Section 13 (h) of the Safety Health and Safety at Work Act 2005.

The DPP thinks that recourse to the Employment Appeals Tribunal is cold comfort for a dismissed employee whistleblower.

Surely the Government knew this in 2005, if the DPP can know it now?

“28.—(1) In a personal injuries action (other than an action under section 48 of the Act of 1961), any income, profit or gain in respect of which—
(a) the plaintiff is making a claim, and
(b) (i) a return has not been made before the hearing of the action in accordance with the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 , or
(ii) the plaintiff has not otherwise notified the Revenue Commissioners,
shall, for the purposes of assessing damages, be disregarded by the court, unless the court considers that in all the circumstances it would be unjust to disregard such income, profit or gain.”

This provision bristles with difficulties for a judge. Whatever the judge decides, an appeal court could and probably would take a different view. The Section implies that some people will get the compensation and some people will not. Why? We do not know, and not to know is wrong. The fact that a Defendant is insured must be a deciding factor, otherwise the decision to withhold compensation would result in tax foregone by fraud (or error?) being credited to an insurance company.
Is it possible that one or more insurance companies procured the insertion of this Section into the Act?

Yes it is. We see from the Irish Times that a committee of bankers’ representatives was designing legislation (for banks) as late as 2008.
Now we know how Government works.

THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P

Between

DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff

And

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

UPDATE (25/3/2010)

1. Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. has taken a case against the Irish Government as seen HERE.

2. McGarr Solicitors act for Digital Rights Ireland Ltd.

3. DRI brought an application to the High Court to seek a ruling from the ECJ on an EU law issue. The State responded with its motion challenging DRI’s right to bring the proceedings. The Irish Human Rights Commission applied for leave to make submissions in the proceedings. These Motions were heard in the High Court in July 2008.

4. Judge McKechnie reserved judgment on those issues before the Court.

5. The Plaintiff has asked the Court to refer the issue of the validity of Directive 2006/24/EC to the ECJ. The State had brought this question to the ECJ. (The hearing began in the ECJ the very morning the Motions opened before Judge McKechnie). The Plaintiff endorsed the State case but went further; it says the Directive is not valid, not simply on procedural grounds, but on substantive grounds of breach of human rights and the fundamental law of the EU. This was a very important difference between the State and the Plaintiff on the Directive point.

6. The State asked the Court to deny locus standi to the Plaintiff and, in default of success on that request, asked that the Court order the Plaintiff to furnish security for costs to the State. Judgement on these points had also been reserved.

7. The case was mentioned before Judge McKechnie on 25th March 2010 on which occasion he indicated he would deliver his reserved judgment on 21st April 2010.

This blog has referred (July 2007) to one of them.

That post referred to the fact that the UK (and Ireland, consequently) formerly had that very remedy and allowed it to fall into disuse.

It is now proposed to revive it in the UK.

Another good idea that would have stopped Charles J. Haughey, deceased leader of Fianna Fail, from getting inexplicably rich, is to be found in the laws of many former UK dominions.

Hong Kong’s version is found in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. It provides;

“10. (1) Any person who, being or having been a prescribed
officer –

(a) maintains a standard of living above that which is
commensurate with his present or past official
emoluments; or

(b) is in control of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his present or past official
emoluments,

shall, unless he gives a satisfactory explanation to the court as to
how he was able to maintain such a standard of living or how such
pecuniary resources or property came under his control, be guilty of
an offence.”

(The definition of “prescribed officer” is critical; we are not after the dog-catcher).

A False Claim Act is, however, the superior remedy; it applies to private corruption and to public corruption; it promotes the disclosure of wrongdoing by witnesses; it acts as a disincentive to crime (by making it dangerous to undertake).

It is not helped by the fact that the law relating to corruption in Ireland is controversial. It is strewn over several pieces of legislation and has been criticized on a regular basis by the OECD expressly for that reason.

Two weapons in the State’s armoury were brought in by Britain (still in force in the UK), (The Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916) and are old. They are also inadequate. (The 1916 Act does not apply to employers: who, but employers, will fund the bribery?).

Ireland ratified the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions but, like many others, has dragged its heels in actually acting on its obligations.

In 2008 the OECD reported:

“In particular, the Working Group is disappointed that Ireland did not seize the opportunity of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008 to act upon the Phase 2 recommendations to consolidate and harmonise the two separate foreign bribery offences in the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001 and the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. The Group therefore recommends, as it did in 2007, that Ireland act on this issue as a matter of priority. It urges Ireland to pursue its declared intent to make changes to the 2008 Bill in order to achieve greater consistency between the two statutes, and consolidate at the first possible opportunity the corruption offences into a single piece of legislation. In addition, the Group continues to recommend that Ireland adopt on a high priority basis appropriate legislation to achieve effective corporate liability for foreign bribery.”

The Minister for Justice etc. welcomed this report, congratulating some civil servants, in effect, for meeting regularly to keep under review Ireland’s continuing default.

This is not academic stuff. See HERE.

And what of the, inadequate and insufficient, Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008?

It’s not even in sight.

Isis; Marduk; Aphrodite; Quetzallcoatl; Selene; Kibuka; Zeus; Hermes; Tekkeitserto; Mader-Akka; Ops; Nanook; Yhi; Ghidjja; Odin; Jupiter; Acuecucyoticihuati;

When you are finished, you may, at your discretion, help Michael O’Leary how to plan the operation of his pay toilets on Ryanair flights, assuming he is still engaged in that project when you are finished yours, if ever.