McGarr Solicitors use Macintosh computers; that is, we use computers with the Apple operating system on them.

The beginning of this was the Macintosh SE which introduced me to computer use in or about 1987.

For me, then, the database program in Appleworks was the most valuable element of the machine and its software. Despite the passage of time I have not found a database program as useful as that, despite its limitations, which were obvious.

Those limitations brought me to think about relational databases; in short, to look into the world of mathematicians and nerds, a place for which I was and am constitutionally unsuited. (Ten plus fifteen is twenty-six, right?).

Bill Gates of Microsoft owned or controlled the alternative machine. For me, it was’nt at the races.

So, now Bill Gates has retired. I endorse his future plans; I decry his past. Without him the better system, the Mac, would be everywhere.

Everywhere would have the benefits of an aesthetic and economical approach to computing. Unlike Bill Gates’ system, one would not encounter a “counter-intuitive� element in an interface.

Which is not to say that native wit is everything in the learning of a Mac program; it is not.

But in Bill Gates’ system it would have been an impossibility to use Pagemeker to publish a book, as I have done, with the program written in Italian for the Italian market.

Ciao, Bill.

Ireland has vetoed the Lisbon Treaty.

Or has it? What is a veto? More particularly, what is a veto in the European Union?

Ireland has previously cast a veto (in the EU Council of Ministers) and it was denied that it had that effect. That is, it was treated as a dissent, not as a block.
See HERE for details.

The defeat of the Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland is not a rejection of the European Union. However, the response of the European Union may indeed lead to a rejection of the EU. Only a Union based on law can attract and hold the allegiance of the people of Europe. The legal basis of the European Union lies in the treaties. Under the treaties Ireland’s assent to the Lisbon Treaty is a requirement to bring it into force.

To say that implementing the Lisbon Treaty was “going to be difficult” as Christine Lagarde the French Finance Minister did in Korea is to imply that the European Union is not an entity built on law.

To press ahead as President Sarkozy and Gordon Brown propose is to subscribe to the same implication. To propose a “two-speed” Europe (see HERE) is a proposal to abandon the European Union, a legally questionable idea.

The City of Derry wants to change its name. Actually the Derry City Council wants to change the name of the city, but the courts have ruled that they can’t do that because Charles II of England changed the name of the city from Derry to Londonderry by charter in 1652. (Note that the Council had changed its own name). The court went on to advance a questionable proposition; that the name could be changed by a change in the law, or by the Queen of England on receipt of a petition to that end.

At risk of contradiction by experts in the British constitution (has that been located yet?) it is most unlikely that the Queen would claim such a role or welcome the delivery of the petition regardless of her views on the two competing names, or her predecessor, Charles II.

A change in the law is a better suggestion.

The Law Society of Ireland had its name changed under Section 4 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. The Society was formerly known as the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. Like the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, it is an incorporated body under charter (in the case of the Law Society, a charter from Queen Victoria in 1854). These two chartered bodies are unusual in Ireland in not being semi-state bodies; not being subject to the provisions of the Companies Acts 1963-2003 and not being subject to oversight by the Oireachtas or, effectively, the Competition Authority (as currently operating).
Changing your name is normally charged with meaning. The trick is to find the meaning.

Kristian von Hornsleth made a general offer to the residents of a village in Uganda to gift them each a pig or a sheep if they adopt his name. Edith Hornsleth Babirye defended this arrangement (relationship?) following receipt of her pig, which she plans to use to pay school fees.

If you are in Illinois and want to be a judge – change your name. (To “O�Brien� it seems). Fred Rhine, look at this.

Minister of State Tony Killeen TD did not change his name but he has pleaded, effectively, a nomenclature malfunction. He denies responsibility for appeals in his name to Michael McDowell SC TD, for the early release of a murderer and, separately, a child rapist. The appeals were generated by a system established by Mr. Killeen; calculated to benefit him; written on his notepaper; purporting to be signed by him. A court would, on evidence like that, in a suitable case, convict him of conspiracy at least.

If he wants to change his name he needs to lodge a Deed Poll to that effect in the Central Office of the High Court.

The Law Society of Ireland didn’t have it that easy, it seems.

The Conveyancing Committee is comprised of working solicitor members (working in private practice) brought together by the Law Society of Ireland to give guidance, and set procedures, in the resolution of questions that may arise in conveyancing transactions. Conveyancing is what lawyers do when transferring or mortgaging land or buildings.

The members are unpaid for their work. They are, of necessity, deeply involved in conveyancing practice and, of course, earn their living from doing so. They tend not to belong to the category of solicitor who seeks election to the Council of the Law Society.

The Conveyancing Committee oversees the production of the various editions of the Law Society General Conditions of Sale. These form part (hopefully) of every conveyancing sale transaction.

It also oversees the production of the Law Society’s Requisitions on Title. These form an indispensable check-list of questions to be answered by the vendor or mortgagee in a conveyancing transaction.

The Conveyancing Committee is an important body; its work is known to the legal profession (and the judiciary) but unsung in public.

I have a soft spot for the Committee, having found no response to my assertion to colleagues that Professor Farrand cracked jokes in his book “Contract & Conveyance�; dry jokes, admittedly.

It’s lonely, being a conveyancer.

The Richmond Hospital in North Brunswick St. has a new phase of life as a District Court building.

It’s a fine two story building of red brick and terracotta with two wings on either side of a fine staircase to the entrance.

Court 52 is clearly occupying what was once a hospital ward; broad and well lit, with gracious ceiling height in proportion to the size of the space.

The structure inspires confidence in its developers, the medical men (and women?) who brought it into being. There would have been no surgical swabs left unforgotten by those people in a patient after the scalpel wound was sewn up. They also believed in the germ theory of disease.

This sense of carefulness and planning can be seen in the title documents of the premises. I acted for a potential unsuccessful purchaser when it ceased to be a hospital and was offered for sale.

The Hospital trustees had been very careful over a long period of time and never failed to use the services of a good surveyor or cartographer. In addition they had been compelled to assemble the site painstakingly, each sliver of land (particularly on the road frontage) being carefully mapped and associated with its title deeds.

Again, thanks to the same people, it now helps to bring a civilized tone to what can be a stressful process (even for the lawyers).

Before 200 asylum seekers in direct provision accommodation in Limerick/Clare commenced a hunger strike (Irish Times 30/1/07) did the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform receive any prior inkling of their complaints?

The complaints are, inter alia;
a) In meals the “customers� find hair strands; pieces of broken plastic and particles of shells.

b) One toilet roll a week is allocated. Experience, shows this is inadequate.

c) Lack of cleanliness

This is a no-brainer. If it were a prison, the visiting committee would vouch the facts. The Department has been criticised previously for whimsical variation in the quality of direct provision.

The Department has, with regard to children, acknowledged its obligations to ensure that proper provision be made under its schemes or systems.

Does anyone ever answer for this kind of situation?

This posting is a blatant act of plagiarism.

It is also a paean to the French Big Brother awards 2006 and French politicians, whose mission seems to include bringing laughter to the world, or the francophone section of it in any event, surely with the best of intentions.

The awards, as the title suggests, goes to the persons promoting acts or policies generally familiar to the readers of Orwell’s “1984�.

Nicholas Sarkozy was disqualified from admission to the awards this year, having won too often in the past and generally showing a superior talent to his fellow politicians in the running. His innate sense of contempt for the privacy of his fellow citizens and his dedication to spying on them were traits hard to beat, and so he was excluded.

1. In the “State� category the winner had compiled police records on citizens on foot of suspicion. He then deprived them of jobs on the basis of the “police records�

2. Sony-BMG installed spy software in their CDs, to spy on the customer purchasers of the CDs.

3. The Mayor of Ploërmel won an award for introducing a system for citizens to denounce other citizens and for installing 50 video cameras to watch a locality with no public order or crime problems.

4. Frédéric Péchenard won for his work in promoting the genetic filing of the entire population, arguing that innocent persons would consequently be free of suspicion.

5. Minister of Justice Pascal Clément, (what a surprise) won for, inter alia, his “determination to imprison and control� (is this a French idea?).

Would the French laugh at our politicians if they received our reports? Appropriate reports in the comment section please.

We have commented previously on the ePassport and its lack of security.

See the attached opinion of the EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party on RFID tags in passports and its recommendations for steps to precede the introduction of the chipped passports.

We cannot see that Ireland took any notice of the Working Party’s recommendations, not to speak of, inter alia, the concerns of Civil Liberties groups in the USA and Canada.

For example, what State agencies, besides the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, have access to the ePassport database? The Garda Siochana?

If we are not close to Boston or Berlin, with what place are we close?

What do people mean when they refer to “Personal Injury� claims?

It is, firstly and obviously, a reference to the consequences of an event; somebody has been injured. In addition, following the injury there is an allegation that somebody else has caused the injury and is answerable in law for that. Its current major significance is the consideration of the claim as an administrative problem. It also expresses a particular view of the “problem�; administratively, the problem could be the rising rate of injury in the population, caused perhaps by a change in the economy, evidenced by the increased use of motor cars, say. Or, it could be defined from the point of view of the person accused; that there should not be an obligation to answer such accusations and, moreover, pay compensation.

Is there an administrative problem?

According to the Courts Service, in 2003 of 16,400 summonses, 10,600 were seeking compensation for personal injury. The growth in litigation is undeniable but very arguably is accounted for by the development of the economy. That growth was not confined to claims for compensation for personal injury, it has extended to purely commercial disputes which themselves place demand on the court system for attention. The established system for dealing with disputes between persons is the court system. The Constitution of Ireland secures the right of access to the courts for resolution of such disputes.

What happens to all these cases?

The majority are settled. The court system could not cope with the task of providing a full judicial hearing for these disputes. Only a small proportion of disputes come to a full hearing. However, even a small proportion of a large, or growing figure, can place a strain on the system. Some see a solution in the appointment of more judges.

Is there a right to compensation for personal injury?

No. The right is to the adjudication of disputes between persons. If the injury is caused without the involvement of another person, the injured person will be left without compensation. Even where fault is found against another person, that finding itself will not ensure the payment of compensation. (That’s the reason third party insurance is compulsory for the use of motor vehicles; the policy will ensure the payment of the compensation).

How much personal injury is there in Ireland?

For most of the time since the foundation of the State there was no concerted effort to answer this question. Consider accidents at work. Even after the passing of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989, the State had not sought to estimate or ascertain the number of people injured at work. At best a guess could be made by combining the figures of injury from the Department of Labour and the Department of Social Welfare, giving a figure of about 16,000 a year in the early ’90s. The Barrington Commission had estimated the annual number of accidents causing 1-to-3 day absences from work at between 4,000 and 36,000. The Department of Labour came up with a figure for the number of accidents at work at 45,000 per year. (This was over 4% of the workforce). A member of the Royal Academy of Medicine, in 1990, estimated the total number of accidents in Ireland, annually, at 68,000. The Health and Safety authority, in 1990 estimated the total number of injuries at work annually at 18,250. The Health and Safety Authority now furnish a figure, for 2003, of work related injuries and illness, causing an absence from of work in excess of 3 days, of 39,700 persons. These would vary in seriousness, but arguably an injury involving an absence from work of in excess of 3 days is serious.

What proportion of these injuries would be the responsibility of the person injured and nobody else?

This can be answered only by a guess. The guess is; very few. Most road traffic accidents involve more than one vehicle. Given the detailed rules applicable to driving vehicles, it is rarely the case that there has not been an error by one or more of the drivers of these vehicles, giving rise to a potential if not an actual dispute. In the case of workplace accidents, it is the obligation of an employer to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the health and safety of employees; if the employee is injured at work it will normally involve a breach of that general or some specific duty of the employer.

Why should these injured people be compensated?

This question could be posed as follows: Why should persons who injure other persons not compensate the injured persons? The general answer is multifold.
Firstly the Constitution of Ireland obliges the State to vindicate the person of the citizen as follows:
“3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.�
This is generally acknowledged to imply the obligation to impose liability to make compensation for personal injuries arising from fault.
Secondly, most societies, ancient and modern, made and make provision for payment of compensation for such injuries.

What is the proper level of compensation for such injured persons?

There is no fixed answer to this question. It must depend on the society involved. In a rich society, it would not be right to confine the obligation to make compensation to a mere gesture. Of course the injuries and illness differ in degree of seriousness. This should be reflected in the amount of the compensation.

Is there any alternative to the court compensation system?

Yes. In New Zealand the state has established an Accident Compensation scheme and it presents its service as follows:
“The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) administers New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme, which provides personal injury cover for all New Zealand citizens, residents and temporary visitors to New Zealand. In return people do not have the right to sue for personal injury, other than for exemplary damages.�
The scheme does not cover all accidents. Where this happens, there is a right to have recourse to the courts. Of course the compensation is paid by the state, that is, out of taxation of the population.

TO BE CONTINUED…

This is a very risky posting. It’s about words, and how we use them. The subject word is “refute�. This is a word which politicians and lawyers (or policemen; Sir Ronnie Flanagan being the latest) have use for, but it is its misuse that is the focus of attention. It is sometimes used as a substitute or synonym for “deny� or “contradict�.

I contend that this misuse is not accidental. It is chosen because at some level of consciousness the speaker/writer understands its real meaning, which is:

“to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge�

However, if you say you refute what Mr. X has said, it carries the implication that he has been completely defeated on the issue and can have nothing more to say about it, a state of affairs much desired by politicians, say.

But it is not correct to say that you “…refute what Mr. X says�, you must say you “…have refuted him�. Of course, before you say that, you must actually refute what he says or claims. You do that by adducing evidence. If that evidence conclusively disproves what Mr. X claims, then he is refuted. You can then say you have refuted him.

I contend the misuse of “refute� is evidence of bad faith. It is intended, at some level, to carry the claim of “…having refuted him�, when in fact all that has happened is the issuing of a denial. Denials are respectable; they are weakened, however, by claiming they are refutations, and that weakness is a chicken that should be brought home to roost as soon as possible.