Unless he was convicted of statutory rape then the recent developments are presumably irrelevant?cuchulainn said:will that Donegal priest who was found guilty today of raping a 13 year old 21 years ago walk free as well? or will the scenario described by delgirl kick in? hopefully so.
the lawyer representing Mr. A not think to himself/herself, this man did wrong and was convicted and should stay in jail because that's where he belongs ... or did he/she just see euros and a chance to boost his/her ego by taking a high profile case. I don't know how they can sleep at night.
Henny Penny said:IDid the lawyer representing Mr. A not think to himself/herself, this man did wrong and was convicted and should stay in jail because that's where he belongs ... or did he/she just see euros and a chance to boost his/her ego by taking a high profile case. I don't know how they can sleep at night.
ubiquitous said:Lawyers in this country are obliged by their professional ethics code to act at all times in the best interests of their clients - regardless of the intregrity or otherwise of their clients. If a lawyer fails to act in the best interests of their clients, they may be disciplined by their professional regulatory body and may be exposed to a professional negligence claim from an aggrieved client.
the problem aint with the judicary in terms of constitutionality,people knew decades ago this law was on dodgy ground and succesvie governments failed to change it,especially fianna fail as they have been in government for 13 of last 16 years and 16 years ago the law reform commision said this law was dodgy and had to be changed,also McDowell was AG and should have been aware and changed things,also current DPP/AG could have prosecuted MR "A" etc under differnet laws(eg rape,sexual assualt) and still be in jail now for a long time.ubiquitous said:The fault seems to lie with the judiciary rather than with the politicans. It strikes me as barmy that a judge could rule that an entire piece of legislation should fall asunder just because one aspect of that legislation is deemed to be unconstitutional.
On several occasions over the years various aspects of tax legislation were found to be unconstitutional, however in those cases the entire tax code did not fall apart. One example was when the constitutionality of an aspect of the tax treatment of married couples was challenged successfully in the 1980s. Had the present form been in vogue at the time, it seems that the entire income tax framework relating to married couples would have been instantly abolished, and any married person facing income tax bills, or any sort of evasion proceedings, could have gone to court to have them scrapped. This makes absolutely no sense to me...
ps, moderators, any chance of a meaningful title for this important discussion??? Thx.
ubiquitous said:I don't think you are comparing like with like. A solicitor has discretion whether or not to accept instructions from a client in relation to taking a civil case on their behalf. On the other hand, if an individual is charged with a criminal offence, they are legally entitled to legal representation. There is a difference between the 2 scenarios.
bearishbull said:people knew decades ago this law was on dodgy ground and succesvie governments failed to change it,especially fianna fail as they have been in government for 13 of last 16 years.
bearishbull said:current DPP/AG could have prosecuted MR "A" etc under differnet laws(eg rape,sexual assualt) and still be in jail now for a long time.
TarfHead said:Following on from the Prime Time programme earlier this week about solicitors, the contrast is stark, i.e. a solicitor is not obliged to provide you with a service if you want to take an action against one of their own, but for MR A, they're obliged.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?