Practice & Procedure
Here in Ireland, if there were to be a reprise of that struggle we can not be sure that the courts’ response might not be equally inadequate.
n Guerra v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 357, toxic emissions from a factory injured many nearby residents and killed some. The ECtHR found that the absence of information on the effects of living near the factory breached the Applicants’ right to respect for home under Article 8 of the Convention.
It is an obligation of an advocate, in cross-examination, to convey to the witness the evidence the advocate intends to adduce to rebut the evidence of the witness. This is called “putting” the case to the witness. The witness will have the presumed opportunity to comment on the “case” of the advocate’s witnesses.
The essential element of the book, in explaining its success, was prolixity. A work is prolix if it is too long. It is a general human failing to think that there must be substance to something if it can be written about at length.
n Ireland, we have not introduced provision for injured persons to claim against the insurers of the malfeasor who caused the loss. This provision is available in the UK and, it would appear from Knight v Axa, France.
Either way, it behooves the media to at least ask what is taught at Judge school. It might tell us something about Ireland we need to know, and God knows, we know very little.
Conventionally, to propose a debate is to, impliedly, claim to be reasonable. Calling for a debate overlooks the fact that we cannot, and should not, submit everything to debate; where things are settled and agreed, they should not be opened to examination (and procrastination), unnecessarily.
The debate has the unseemly presence of Lord Woolf in it. It is unseemly for him to “defend” his “reforms”. The subject is too important to be tainted by an effort to defend a personal investment.
Fraud is a little like the “golden thread” [of innocence until proven guilty] running through [British] justice; it means more on some occasions than on others.