"All Judicial Appointments Are Political, Including Mine" - Judge

[Slim Buddha]

Peter Kelly would be wasted in the Supreme Court

True. He is far more effective where he is.

[Baron von Biffo]

"[Judge Kelly] said there should be an independent body to appoint judges"

But that would be a quango!

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...y-3240492.html

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

I'm amazed to find no sign of the Baron on this thread trying to make out that the judge is mistaken and Ireland is a model of independent arms-length democracy between the institutions of the state .

Probably still thinking about how to play this one. The amount of people who still, despite five years worth of evidence tumbling out about corruption, nepotism, cartel arrangements and so on Ireland who will tell you that Ireland isn't corrupt is astonishing and delusional.

[Baron von Biffo]

The entire Kelly article can be read here.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

What's your take on it, Biffo?

[musashi]

A surprisingly frank interview of Judge Michael Patwell (retired) by Charlie Bird. He said that his own appointment was political, and that he had approached a former Fianna Fail Minister to get it.

Charlie Bird replied that "of course things have changed" - the reply was that it had not, and that all appointments to the bench by the present Government were of Labour or Fine Gael connections.

The Judicial Appointments body makes recommendations of 8 names to the Minister, who selects the appointment.

A very frank interview - I only heard the opening ten minutes but will be catching up with the rest on the rte player later.

http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/...A25-08-2012%3A

Would agree with most of the opinions on this thread. This place is rotten to the marrow with cronyism, it is firmly set in every strata of Irish society; so not so surprised that a judge has confirmed this, what interests me more is why this is so and how to remedy it.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

You'd have to start from scratch.

[disability student]

P Kelly ... is one of the few judges that stand out from the rest of them. His comments is correct as we have seen many political appointments in the Judiciary system that any govt made on behalf of their friends/donor friends in terms of donations to their respective parties. It's quite clear that judiciary system is flawed from the outset and no efforts were made to rectify this problem.

I agree with one poster that P Kelly would be wasted in the Supreme Court. He would be better off where his work would be effective for the state.

[Baron von Biffo]

A thoughtful response to Judge Kelly's comments on judicial appointments from the Master of the High Court, Edmund Honohan.

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...s-3244313.html

[homer]

thoughtful comments by Master of the High Court.

btw his robust attitude to certain applications by lending institutions can be a joy to watch.

Spent a morning there last year. His appproach reminded me of the late Pat Lindsay

[Trow]

It's an open secret that all court circuits are corrupted.

[Seán Ryan]

Having met Edmund Honohan on a few occasions I have but two things to say about him: He's very intelligent and he's an absolute gentleman.

But I absolutely disagree with the idea that this is the best that we can get. I'm still of that opinion even though what Mr Honohan said is logical and and its conclusion is correct, that he is working from a defective premise.

A number of years ago I acted as a Mckenzie Friend for a gentleman who was judicially reviewing the actions of a judge in an ongoing criminal trial. We were up against the DPP. At one point in the proceedings the DPP was on his feet and was making a legal argument that showed that he'd not studied too well for the case. My friend, when it came to his turn to speak, referred to the DPP as "my friend," a common way of describing one's adversary in a court sitting. Immediately, the judge lost the plot. He shouted and screeched for nearly two minutes at the astonished and upset lay litigant. The lay litigant was not cut from the same cloth as the barrister and the judge. I suggested to my friend that he refer to the barrister as "his enemy" the next time he had cause to mention him. But he didn't do it, he was terrified and his spirit was broken. And that is how my friend was dealt with, by the judge, on a non-contentious issue. It was worse when real issues arose. Through each bout of mindless screaming, the DPP nodded his head wisely whenever he thought he'd please the judge.

I've been around the judicial system plenty long to develop a very measured view of it. I used to joke about the courts long ago and say that if a judge ever accused me of contempt that I'd reply that "contempt" didn't even begin to describe how I felt. I realised long ago that I wasn't joking. I'm a person who trusts in the scientific method. One starts out with an idea. One then conducts experiments to test one's hypothesis. To advance beyond the hypothesis stage, the results of the experiments must concur with the hypothesis and they must do so each and every time they are repeated. Consistency. There is no consistency in our courts. The hypothesis that the Irish judiciary can dispense justice is proven to be a delusion each and every day by repeating experiments in courtrooms that conclusively show that tossing a coin would provide for a much better standard of justice.

Our judiciary are drawn from a very shallow pool. It's a pool that I have no problem in describing as a monopoly. That's the first flaw.

I am not a legal professional. I must obey the law, or else! Ignorance is no excuse. I'm expected to be a legal expert so that I might avoid breaking some law, in other words, it is assumed that I understand and can navigate each and every law. The very premise we operate from is a logical fallacy. Thus experimentation itself is redundant. There must be a new hypothesis advanced.

To argue the validity of judicial selection when the system itself is non-functional is redundant.

[Slim Buddha]

You'd have to start from scratch.

I agree with you but then, I would scrap common law if given the chance.

[Trow]

My friend, when it came to his turn to speak, referred to the DPP as "my friend," a common way of describing one's adversary in a court sitting. Immediately, the judge lost the plot. He shouted and screeched for nearly two minutes at the astonished and upset lay litigant. The lay litigant was not cut from the same cloth as the barrister and the judge. I suggested to my friend that he refer to the barrister as "his enemy" the next time he had cause to mention him. But he didn't do it, he was terrified and his spirit was broken. And that is how my friend was dealt with, by the judge, on a non-contentious issue. It was worse when real issues arose. Through each bout of mindless screaming, the DPP nodded his head wisely whenever he thought he'd please the judge..

Yeah. Judges do tend to climb right out of their prams when precise protocol is not observed and they don't tend to take kindly to laymen representing themselves in Court although it is your legal right.

In Law it is written ''The litigant who chooses to represent himself in Court has a fool for a client.'' The attitude of the Judge as you describe shows why but in the case of Mc Kensie V's Mc Kensie [weekly law reports 1970] which was an appeal court case upholding the right of a litigant to defend him/herself in Court it is instructed that the Judge should assist the layman were issues of protocol arise and that such a layperson can have an assistant to take notes and quietly make suggestions. This person is known as a Mc Kensie man.

It never looks good and is rarely observed when your average Paddy public takes on the Judiciary and wins. More so, many Lawyers are reigned in on sensitive cases especially those of a political nature, appeals and so on.

Access to Justice can be a lottery were timing, tactical adjournments and a knowledge of sympathetic, fair minded, non state controlled Judges time tables for residing at the benches are relevant factors to the eventual outcome.

Just a dirty game in my opinion.
A suggestion Sean Ryan, when refering to your opposition in future use the words ''Learned friend'' and when you are in disagreement with them suggest to the Judge that ''My learned friend is not in possession of the facts.''

And when any Judge starts shouting the court down refer him to the case of Mc Kensie v's Mc Kensie and remind him of his obligation to assist the layman.

[Seán Ryan]

I'd not refer to my adversary as "my friend" in the first instance. To refer to him or her as "learned" would be a stretch too far.

There have been hundreds of relevant cases since the original McKenzie v McKenzie case. Our own High Court has decreed that a lay litigant is not only entitled to equality before the court, he or she is entitled to extra judicial forbearance, so that there might be no hint of bias. Ramachandran I think...

In most situations where I've experienced bias in the form of a judge treating a lay litigant like something walked into a carpet from a shoe, I've mostly had relevant case law at hand. Unfortunately most judges don't like to be interrupted mid rant and usually come to some finding before finishing. Thus, having the relevant and supported argument is moot. There are but two possibilities. The first is to ask the judge to state a case to the High Court. Good luck with that, the High Court will answer that your argument should have been made before the judge ruled. A judicial review will yield similar results, only more expensive.

Your quote about the litigant who represents himself having a fool for a client is one that's often heard. It's been my pleasure to have educated quite a few judges at this stage to the fact that the fool being referred to was actually a lawyer.