Real justice would recognise the inequality of arms in this struggle. The formal equality of litigants is often illusory. Lawyers know this and act accordingly.
One of Ireland’s newspapers reputedly aspires to be the Paper of Record. To be serious on the point it ought to have this vainglorious claim beneath its masthead; it does’nt, correctly. It cannot be such, because of its necessarily accepted constraints. A true Paper of Record would explain. No Irish newspaper explains. They cannot, because to explain is to judge. To judge is, often, to defame. No average newspaper (in Britain or Ireland) can defame persistently and survive. What the […]
Finally, if there exists a Judicial Review list in the High Court consisting of cases from the work of one judge, is it not time to look at the judge, as well as his errors?
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 (21/4/2010) 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 […]
Under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 most criminal prosecutions are in the charge of the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”). Some offences are assigned to other legal persons (e.g. Government Ministers) for processing in prosecution by the statute under which they are created. In fact most criminal prosecutions are brought by members of the Garda Siochana in the name of the DPP. Before the 1974 act the prosecutor was the Attorney General. Consequently, it was, before 1974, a social […]
But we should see him as he is, warts and all. We should not have to endure the consequence of more mythical thinking by the judiciary (and the Law Library). The Attorney General is down in the arena with everybody else. He fights for his clients. He represents their interests. He should not be accorded the deference he gets from the judiciary and the Law Library.
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.
Few people know the source or sources of the ideas they use to prop up their speech, not to speak of their lives. To take everything they might say as defining them perfectly is just wrong.
Are the barristers bonkers? Did they know of the predeliction to 4.30 a.m. emails and still vote for that guy? Did they think the gourmand was even going to give them tips on how to get a piece of that lifestyle?