Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Judiciary - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Desmond v Riordan can't sue judge for getting something wrong, don't want judge afraid of being sued
      - order for costs can't be made against judge who acted bona fides if appeal succeeds Fawsitts
      - Kenny convicted wrongfully of rape, state not liable as did fix mistake and would be attack on judicial independence
      - extended to quasi judicial tribunals
        
        Miley v Employment Appeals Tribunal immune from cost orders for judicial review (unless acted mala fides, improperly or contested judicial review)
      - exception if involved
        
        Kitty v Judge Dunne got involved as a litigant no longer immune
    - - article 35.5
      - amendment 2011
        
        can be reduced now if in public interest and part of a general reduction in the public sector
      - O'Byrne v Minister for Finance general taxation not a reduction in remuneration as not targetted ar judiciary
      - McMenamin v Ireland reduction to judges pension was a reduction in remuneration
    - - article 35.4
        
        only allowed for stated misbehaviour or incapacity after resolution in Dail and Seanad
      - Curtin v Dail Eireann child pornography case, judge acquited (warrant out of date), Joint Committee set up, Dail than voted - didn't follow proper procedures - failed - judge did resign before could redo it
        
        2 votes required, are you guilty of misbehaviour and should you be removed
        
        committee power to request personal computer, independence not for benefit of indivdiual judges
        
        important to follow fair procedures
  - - - establishes higher courts and allows for creation of lower courts
    - - independence of judiciary
      - can't be judge and lawmaker
      - appointed by president on advice of government
- - - - Maher drink driving law said a cert is conclusive evidence, SC held unconstitutional as deprives court of decision making role
      - McGonnell made it a rebuttable presumption which was fine
      - Oates v Brown need to be able to contest evidence, had wanted to inspect machine - should have been allowed
      - Sloan act allowed state to issue suppression order if organisation unlawful - not unconstitutional - charged with membership of organisation - can also apply to HC to declare not unlawful
  - - - Osmanovic reserved some choice to court between fine and triple value - so allowed
  - - - Damache wanted to challenge deportation order made by minister, held - never a matter for the courts historically (5th limb), no enforcement (deportation not automatic)
    - - tribunals
        
        Zalewski v WRC unfair dismissal case, challenge to Workplace Relations Commission capacity to hear case - SC criticised use of 5 stage test as checklist - held it was permissible as it was limited
        
        tribunals that investigate and draw conclusions but no enforcment are not adminstering justice
        
        Flood don't have power to determine something is a criminal offence
        
        Goodman v Hamilton not administering justice if making findings of fact in a vacumn
    - - governor can impose punishments but limited
      - State (Murray ) v McRann prison assaulted another prison, disciplined under prison rules - permissible as limited exercise of judiical power
    - - legal profession
        
        Solicitors Act 1954 striking off solicitor historically judge power
      - other professions
        
        M v Medical Council power to apply to HC to strike off allowed as it was the HC removing the doctor
        
        Keady garda discipline not a matter for courts and no qualification being removed
    - - 5 stage test
        
        dispute over legal right or violation of law
        
        Determination of rights or law
        
        final determination (can it be appealed)
        
        enforcement - how is it enforced if other party doesn't comply
        
        is it making an order (usually court power)
- - - - Re R wanted to be in private to protect sensitive company info, SC held - any exception be special and limited circumstances - prescribed by law and to have it in public would deny justice
      - Roe hepatitis case, didn't want to name themselves- had to name themselves
    - - Gilchrist
        
        wanted case held in private to protect witness protection programme
        
        Court of Appeal
        
        applies to civil and criminal, multiple rights to balance, 4 stage test - on facts ordered in camera
        
        Supreme Court
        
        don't like hierarchy of rights, inherent jurisdiction to hold in private (up to trial judge), should be carefully and closely scrutinised - held risk to life and national security clearly pass the test
        
        heard in private for family cases - any advances considered incrementally and see if lesser steps can be taken
        
        court shoud consider if any lesser steps aree possible such as not naming witness or redactions, or partly in camera
      - Medical Council v Anonymous committee investigation with adverse findings, could it be held in camera - followed incremental approach - do what is necessary to avoid damage - doctor and patient names redacted
      - O'Doherty and Waters court held online and in court - proceedings in public - media present and transcripts availabe
      - Zalewski dealt with WRC being in private - fully in camera was unconstitutional
    - - Irish Times criminal trial, trial judge banned reporting - SC held - no longer in public - only done if real risk of unfair trial and can't be otherwise remedied (could have given directions to jury instead)
      - Ansbacher Irish times criteria only applied in criminal cases
      - Indepdent Newspapers v Anderson trial judge ordered name not published (possession of child order) - held should be published
      - Doe Revenue wanted to publish names of defaulters, right to privacy or good name not sufficient to displace justice in public - difference between where proceedings affected or benefit of proceedings affected