Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
—
POLITICIANS, ADVOCATES AND environmental NGOs have hit out at the Government for adding last-minute amendments to a proposed law due to be voted on today.
Late last Thursday, opposition TDs received 48 pages of amendments that were added to the Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2022 which was originally 18 pages long. That left just three working days for examination before voting on it this evening in the Dáil.
“Given how complex planning law is, and how complex the interaction between the courts and judicial review processes and planning, it’s really a very reckless way to make these kinds of changes,” Sinn Féin housing spokesperson Eoin Ó Broin told Noteworthy.
The proposed Bill primarily has to do with matters of substitute consent, a form of retroactive planning permission that unauthorised developments – such as quarries or wind farms – found to be in breach of EU law can apply for.
The Bill passed through the Seanad last month and was debated last week in the Dáil. It is due to be voted on in the Dáil this evening, as the Government works to push legislation through the Oireachtas before it breaks for the summer at the end of the week.
However, the new amendments put forward by the Government expanded the Bill to cover a wide range of issues outside of substitute consent, including new regulations for short-term lets and changes to the judicial review process, among others.
The Government has been strongly criticised for both the amendments and the way they were added at the end of the process, particularly in relation to the proposed changes to judicial reviews, which Ó Broin told the Dáil yesterday were “deeply controversial”. He also stated:
The idea that the Government would try and ram through 48 pages of technical legislation, many of which [the amendments] won’t even be dealt with in limited time… is wholly unacceptable.
Judicial reviews are challenges taken by citizens or groups to the High Court. In recent years they have been used extensively to challenge decisions made by An Bord Pleanála (ABP) in relation to large scale property developments.
TDs have been given 2.5 hours to finalise the Bill this evening, which Ó Broin said would only be enough time to cover the primary issue of substitute consent, without taking into account the proposed amendments.
According to an updated Order of Business for the Dáil, there will be an additional hour of discussion this morning also.
Attracta Uí Bhroin, Environmental Law Officer with the Irish Environment Network, said that the amendments were “throwing a minefield into the judicial review process”.
Uí Bhroin said that the Environmental Pillar – a network of environmental NGOs – is calling for the proposed amendments to be scrapped.
Her calls were echoed by Phoebe Duvall, Planning and Environmental Policy Officer with An Taisce, who said the amendments were “a stealth attack on public participation in the planning system”.
However, Conor O’Connell, incoming Director Housing, Planning and Development with the Construction Industry Federation (CIF), broadly welcomed the amendments as tackling issues around judicial reviews.
“We’re assessing them at the moment obviously, they’re just being published, but we’d welcome any streamlining of the proposals,” he said.
“We’ve seen an extraordinary rise in the number of judicial review cases taken against planning permissions that have been granted. So there’s obviously systematic problems with the application of the Planning and Development Acts and we’d welcome measures that would streamline that.”
—
Noteworthy, the investigative platform of The Journal, is currently examining the judicial review process as part of our upcoming investigation – THE CONSTRUCTION NETWORK.
So, what are judicial reviews, why have they become more commonplace in recent years and why are these amendments being made all of a sudden before the summer recess?
Growth in judicial reviews
In planning and development, there are special laws governing judicial reviews, as set out in Sections 50 and 50A of the amended Planning and Development Act 2000.
Under these laws, the High Court must be satisfied that the person or group taking a judicial review challenge has “substantial grounds” that the decision was invalid. They must also have sufficient interest in the case, and they must bring the challenge within eight weeks of the planning decision being made.
In recent years, the number of judicial reviews have shot up as a response to laws introduced by the last Government aimed at speeding up the planning process for large housing developments.
In 2017, the then Fine Gael-led Government brought in laws that allowed large developments of over 100 units of accommodation to bypass local planning authorities and go straight to An Bord Pleanála (ABP) for a decision.
These Strategic Housing Developments (SHDs) would then be decided directly by ABP, instead of being decided by a local authority.
If someone or a group felt that there was an issue with the lawfulness of the decision-making process, they could not lodge an appeal to ABP itself. The only option for local residents’ groups, environmental NGOs or concerned individuals was to challenge these decisions in the courts.
One of the most well known cases occurred at St Paul’s College, in Raheny, Dublin, where local residents opposed a development of 657 residential units on the site at St Anne’s Park.
Through a judicial review, they challenged ABP’s decision to grant planning permission in the High Court. The judge ruled in favour of the challenge and the board’s decision was struck down. ABP appealed this decision, but their appeal failed earlier this year.
In 2012, 17 decisions by An Bord Pleanála were subject to judicial review. This had risen to 41 in 2018. Two years later – in 2020 – there were over 2,600 planning decisions made by ABP and 83 judicial reviews taken.
This increased to a new record of 95 judicial reviews last year, according to figures released recently to Ó Broin and reported by The Irish Examiner.
Though the frequent use of judicial reviews has been criticised by Government and construction industry representative groups as slowing down development, an analysis of completed cases shows that a significant majority are decided in favour of the challengers.
According to Fred Logue – a solicitor whose firm represents many of the parties taking judicial review cases – 91 challenges to SHDs have come before the High Court since 2018, with 44 having reached a conclusion.
These have a success rate of over 70%, he added, with 32 out of the 44 winning the challenge. A total of three cases failed, and nine were settled. A decision is still pending in 47 of the cases.
Logue said that many more cases are still coming down the line. “There’s about 50 cases pending, and about 90 SHD decisions that are yet to be made, which is about 20% of the entire number of SHDs since it started,” he said.
Attempts to make challenges harder
As the number of judicial reviews rose throughout 2018 and 2019, the then-Government sought to amend existing laws to make it more difficult for cases to be brought to the High Court.
The last Government published a bill that aimed to make it harder for NGOs and individuals to bring judicial review challenges. This was met with fierce condemnation, particularly from environmental NGOs and advocacy groups, who said that many of the proposed provisions would go against EU laws on the right to access justice.
Following the 2020 general election, the Green Party sought to delay the changes to judicial review to coincide with the establishment of a separate Environmental and Planning Law Court to deal with matters of planning.
SHDs have since been wound down and the laws amended. However, there is still a significant backlog of cases to be determined – with many last-minute applications having been put forward by developers.
Earlier this year, Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien announced a significant overhaul of all planning laws that is due to take place following a review of the system by Attorney General Paul Gallagher.
This review is to be completed by the end of the year, and O’Brien informed the Oireachtas Housing Committee in April that any changes to judicial review would now be included as part of the wider overhaul, effectively sidelining the issue until later this year.
Following this, a separate set of proposed laws, the Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2022, was introduced into the Seanad in April, dealing with the matter of substitute consent.
At the time, Junior Minister Peter Burke notified senators that the Government would be introducing amendments at a later stage dealing with separate matters, including judicial review. However, the Bill cleared the Seanad last month with no amendments being made.
Speaking in the Dáil last Wednesday, however, Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien said that judicial reviews can cause “considerable delays in the progression of development proposals, including projects of strategic national importance” and that he was introducing a number of “streamlining amendments” in order to “improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes involved”.
Junior Minister Niall Collins said last Thursday that the amendments were being put forward in order to reduce “unnecessary judicial reviews and help to achieve Government policy in this regard”.
A spokesperson for the Department of Housing told Noteworthy that these “streamlining-type amendments” were introduced by the Government “so cases can be more speedily addressed and resolved, thereby potentially reducing the number of judicial review cases and the time taken up in the Courts in dealing with such cases”.
They added: “The Planning and Development (Amendment)(No 2) Bill 2022 was identified as the legislative vehicle through which that change to Planning legislation could be most speedily introduced. Otherwise the change would have had to wait until towards the end of the year.”
The spokesperson said that Department officials briefed “members of the Seanad on the proposed amendment on 25 May 2022″ and members of the Joint Oireachtas Housing Committee “on proposed amendments in advance of Wednesday’s [today's] Committee Stage in the Dáil”.
‘Proper scrutiny’ needed
This “streamlining” lead to the 48 pages of amendments to the new planning bill being given to TDs late on Thursday, leaving just three working days to examine them before tonight’s vote.
There are three central amendments being brought to the judicial review process under the proposed new law. If brought into law, they:
Sinn Féin’s Ó Broin said he was informed by officials that the amendments only related to a small number of cases, so he questions the urgency with which they are being pushed through the Dáil, and why they can’t be implemented as part of the wider review being conducted by the AG. He added:
“There is no reason why the judicial review provisions in the amendments which we’re dealing with this week couldn’t be in that wider piece of legislation [coming later this year] and we could have proper scrutiny and attention paid to them.”
Ó Broin said that he didn’t “want to overstate what may be the negative impact of this” but before making a “decision on whether to vote for this or not”, he would prefer to speak to experts such as the Irish Planning Institute. “But we won’t have any of that opportunity.”
‘Extraordinary power’ given to ABP
According to Fred Logue, the amendment which allows ABP to change its decision mid-challenge is of particular concern, and will cause serious legal issues and further delays if implemented. He told Noteworthy:
“It’s grossly unfair to somebody who has basically spent the money to take a judicial review to find that the goalposts have been moved after they started their proceedings and that they effectively end up challenging a different decision that wasn’t in existence when they started.”
In general, he said the amendment gives no proper procedural framework of how it will be legally implemented, and that it will cause huge delays down the line.
“It’s just going to lead to more litigation. People will start challenging that. And there will be another three years of litigation, trying to sort out the mess that this thing is creating.”
Logue also takes issue with the other two amendments. In relation to the need to exhaust all other options before taking a challenge to the High Court, he said that this provision is already mostly in place, and only a very small number of cases don’t comply with this rule.
However, he said, by putting up an “absolute barrier” to allowing a court to grant leave to a case without all other avenues being exhausted, the Government will be contravening EU laws around access to justice.
That amendment is completely contrary to EU law. It’s fundamentally incompatible to EU law. Because it doesn’t give the court any flexibility on allowing judicial review without exhaustion if it’s required.
For the final amendment, Logue said that by making the court send the case back to ABP, the Government is interfering in a decision that should be the High Court’s to make, and that there has never been a significant issue in the past with cases being remitted [sent back].
“Practically speaking, most cases do get remitted. There’s never been any issues with it. The remittal discretion is quite limited in practice,” he said.
“But again, I can’t understand why they’d put in such an obviously problematic provision when there’s no actual issue that it’s solving.”
‘Streamlining’ welcomed by construction industry
Conor O’Connell of the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) said that the amendments were necessary, pointing towards a drop in planning permissions last year as indicative of serious problems in the sector.
In response to queries over the high success rate by applicants in judicial review cases, O’Connell said that it seemed to be “indicative of a fragmentation in relation to the planning system or the use of the legal system by some individuals to delay applications that have been granted at a local authority level or ABP level”.
When questioned by Noteworthy if CIF had lobbied specifically for the proposed amendments to be brought forward before the summer recess, O’Connell said:
“We have always said on a general basis that the process needs to be streamlined. The method through which that process is streamlined is completely up to the legislator.”
He said that in relation to land that was zoned for housing, there should be the “presumption of development”, and that many judicial review challenges boiled down to complex interpretations of EU laws and directives, and that it was “very frustrating” from a construction industry perspective.
I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest that there are these interpretation issues arising in legal environments when we have a planning system put in place to assess planning processes and applications.
According to Attracta Uí Bhroin, however, the proposed amendments will only serve to further frustrate the planning process and slow down development.
“Anybody who wants to see timely decisions and development facilitated should be looking to have robust sound legislation that is clear and compliant and that has been scrutinised properly. Are we even having it in respect of these [amendments]? No.
“Secondly, they should be improving the resources and the imperative on the decision makers in making good quality decisions. Are they doing that here? No.
“The best way to stop judicial review is to have good decisions. For good decisions you need sound decision making and sound legislation. And both of those are compromised here.”
The issue is due to be debated in the Dáil later today, with a vote on the Bill expected to take place this evening.
—
This article is part of Noteworthy’s upcoming investigation – THE CONSTRUCTION NETWORK – to be published later this year. For this, reporter Cormac Fitzgerald is examining construction industry lobbying, including around judicial review reform.
This investigation was proposed and funded by readers of Noteworthy, the investigative journalism platform from The Journal. You can support our work by submitting an investigation idea, funding a proposed project or setting up a monthly contribution HERE>>
We also have a number of other projects focused on politics which you can view here.
I buried my grandfather the exact day this occurred. We were unable to gather after the burial due to the restrictions as a family complete because of the new restrictions and did so believing it the right thing to do. Not once have I heard remorse from the judge for his actions quite the opposite blaming others the media the politicians for the storm. I personally believe his actions and his complete lack of understanding of his failures has brought the judiciary into complete disrupt and his inability to see that alone demands the actions of the Government to show nobody is above the regulations needed to navigate the pandemic safely. As long as he stays it gives the impression that there is an elite who believe the regulations are for the little people.
@brian boru: My deepest sympathy to you and your family, that must have been difficult to say the least. The way I see it is quite simple, Supreme Court Judge Seamus Woulfe was not the only person there that day, he was one of 80 people, and if he’s guilty then he’s not alone.
By extension, if people in high office can be found guilty of offences like this then why not other things, like leaking documents? For reasons like this I imagine a lot of these people are frantically trying to come up with imaginative ways to avoid doing anything to Justice Woulfe that may one day be done to them.
@brian boru: You and your family decided to abide by the regulations despite the grief and natural pain you were going through and in doing so you used your judgement that the rules applied to everybody and used your judgment to guide you that it was for the better of the wider society to abide by the rules.
Now imagine the Judgement that was applied by the people in the hotel in Clifden and imagine you were seeking justice in a court from the people whose judgment allowed them to attend such an event.
I would be very sceptical that I would receive a balanced and legally sound decision.
@brian boru: fully agree with every single word of that BB and condolences for your loss. I cannot understand how a judge can’t use their supposedly better judgement. How does he have any credibility now given how badly he’s handled everything since the golf dinner?
@Vikki Brennan: He is only protecting his quarter of a million euro salary. Nothing else on this earth matters to his kind. It’s all about the cabbage.
@David Corrigan: I think you’re spot on there. Very depressing.
@Gerry Ryan: Those are completely different types of judgment you’ve conflated there. Judging criminal cases in court vs judging how many people were on the other side of a partition while off duty.
@Thomas O’ Donnell: No Tom, you’re confusing this issue of judgement with interpretation. You see the unfortunate people who had to bury their loved one interpreted the rule one way which was the correct way so their judgment was sound. The other interpretation of the same rule was an exercise in flawed judgement.
The rule was the same.
In my humble opinion what #LeoTheLeak done was & is far worse than what Judge Woulfe did , yes he was wrong in attending the dinner, but what Leo did when he was Taoiseach was far worse #LeoTheLeak #LeoTheLiar
@Christybhoy67: Everyone makes a balls of things now and agaín. If everyone who broke the guidelines or bent a rule had to resign there would be no one left working.
Yes, golf gate was a fiasco, so was leak gate & so was funeralgate.
We need to cut each other a bit of slack.
@Justin Gillespie: Well said no fan of politicians, but we need to weigh up the impact of the mistake. If anything the most serious mistake was mary lou on the funeral up north as it put people health at risk with the huge gathering that was has socially distant or not, but even that in my opinion is not a resignation offence
@Justin Gillespie: I think his decision to ignore the separation of powers, especially in a role that he was just appointed to, is the issue. It calls his judgement into doubt.
@John Mulligan: Leotherat
@Justin Gillespie: Seems the slack seems to apply only to FFG who seem to believe they do not have to abide by the rules..No exceptions should be made for any politician which ever party they represent. This government has stumbled from one crisis to another, and criticise any opposition that challenges them. Ministers resigning, Golf gate, leaking of confidential government documents to an unauthorised person, The endorsement by F.F/ Greens that it ok to leak confidential documents, followed by yet another mess concerning the appointment of a former F.F. senator and lobbyist., and you want to cut them slack.
@John Mulligan: Cringeworthy John? Read this article and learn about cringeworthy.
@john s: I wondered when the FGG would come in with the attack on SF.
Media has gone very silent on the topic also
@Oscar Wilde: really? I’ve heard a load about it this week – all the radio stations were talking about it, wheeling out constitutional law experts to explain the issues. The journal have had at least 4 articles on it this week.
TDs have been warned not to talk about it in public in case they prejudice the vote if it happens so there’s not many interviews to get on it but I don’t think the media have been silent by any stretch.
@Oscar Wilde: …he says as he reads a story about it on a news website.
@Oscar Wilde:
Anybody know why the story “Nomination of ex-FF Senator and NAGP lobbyist to Sipo labelled ‘outrageous’ by opposition” has comments closed after not being up even an hour?
https://www.thejournal.ie/geraldine-feeney-sipo-5264399-Nov2020/
People commenting about the incestuous nature of politics in this country and then the Journal shuts down comments.
@George Vladisavljevic: I think it was more down to all the nonsense claims being made by the shinner bots without a scrap of evidence
@guineon: Which particular comment do you take exception to? what claims were made?
Was seamus Woulfe appointed by Leo? Boys club judges appointed by goverment,seems strange.
@Úna O Connor Barrett: Woulfe was Varadkar’s Attorney General and was proposed, without ant competition, to fill the vacancy for a Supreme Court by Varadkar. Woulfe was appointed as a Judge to the Supreme Court by Chief Justice Clarke, who was appointed to his position as Chief Justice by Woulfe, when he was Attorney General. And round and round it goes…..
Complete overkill. It’s a misdemeanour and bad judgement call. I think worse things happen on a daily basis . Reprimand / sanction but not sacking
@Trevor Connolly:
Bad judgement call is right! All self inflicted and not good moves by, nor optics from someone just appointed to the SC.
Surely he won’t put his new colleague’s through the ringer from such an invidious position as he’s landed himself in.
Might the normal generous State lump-sum payoff arrangements, for such scenarios, be rolled out here again, given the unfortunate circumstances?
This needs closure!
@Rory J Leonard: why had Hogan to go so
What time is it Mr. Woulfe? Resignation time …. get out !!!
Well this is awkward. They can hardly ask Wolfe to resign as long as Leo the leaky liar remains in place. His crime was far more serious in my view and has tarnished the office of Taoiseach. This is why accountability is so important in public life but their hands are tied in this issue now and will be on many more issues to come.
I’m waiting for leo the leak to spray
@Galwaygogo:
L-EGO IS NOT MY AMIGO….ADIOS
He should no resign,the poloticians are being used by justice Clarke and the other two supreme court judges in some ” personal ” spat with justice Woulf .Justice Denham was asked to investigate,bright lady,she did and said there was no need to resign,but that obviously was not the result wanted,well too bad ,its not some European treaty that you keep voting on till you get the desired result,she said he should stay and he’s right to stay,and Leinster house should back away,far away from this.
@Gerry Campbell: oh please, you’re clearly a weapons grade blueshirt supporter coming out with that pro Woulfe old guff! There’s nothing personal from the Chief Justice at all. Your pal Woulfe has conducted himself deplorably and needs to go. It’s embarrassing that his wife, a barrister, has not advised him to do so and flagged what damage he has wreaked in terms of the court’s credibility.
@Gerry Campbell: i understand your point but you missed a few very important points that affect this whole saga , there is new Chief Justice on the Supreme Court where Woulfe is due to begin serving on the court with – He is entitled to do his job and steer a path forward – what other walk of life would you say – well the last boss thought I was grand so it doesn’t matter what you think ? – secondly – the judiciary system cannot claim independence and having a clear separation of powers only for Supreme Court Judge to be going to an Oireachtas Golf Dinner to socialise and network with politicians – and finally – the new Chief Justice made it clear that the behaviour of Seamus Woulfe SINCE the debacle – the whole attitude that it was the media fault whipping up a storm and he hadn’t done ‘anything wrong’ which led the Chief Justice and the rest of the colleagues to form the view that he was damaging the public confidence in the Supreme Court – not some personal vendetta as you implied
@Lizzie: oh you are a beaut,use a pseudonym,then bring the mans personal life into the mix,throw out a few insluts but do not go near the point….those weekend seminars are really working,now tiocfaidh off and troll somewhere else,let me be clear …
@Dave Hammond: Fair enough,I didnt imply a personal issue,just suggested it as i can not figure out why we constantly in this country seek reviews by very qualified people,then reject the results,also i agree with the point about fraternising with poloticians,but that one works both ways ,the poloticians should have enough sense to adhere to that also,and just seccond guessing you,none of the resignations by the poloticans were for innapropriate contact with a judge..covid got them…my point really was why overule a hand picked Judges findings ?
@Gerry Campbell: A Supreme Court judge should not be trying to defend wrong actions by arguing legal technicalities- it’s not the behaviour you would expect from a Supreme Court Justice.
The Chief Justice is correct in giving his personal view.
@Dave Hammond: to my mind it looks like if he sticks to his guns regardless of whether you think he should go or not there is not a process in place to remove him without blurring the lines of politicians interferering in judicial affairs,but I think lessons have got to be learned here,in my opinion no attorney general should ever be allowed to be appointed as a supreme Court judge as they are essentially part of the government they served so that is another blurred line when it comes to political influences in judicial appointments,and as much as I hate to agree with Shane Ross on anything he is right to say that we need at the very least more transparency on the appointment of judges who can make judgements on laws passed by democratically elected governments,time for reform is now.
It’s manifestly the case that her own position wasn’t tenable after she attended an IRA show of force in Belfast too, but she didn’t resign then.
And it’s manifestly the case that her own position isn’t tenable now with the scandalous breach of funding rules, where her supposedly all-Ireland party is doggedly holding on to four million pounds that should be returned to the family of the troubled individual who donated it to them.
Mary Lou McDonald and her leaders are in no position to preach to anybody.
@John Mulligan: one rule of them though.
@John Mulligan: what has gowing to a funeral of a friend got to do with this, if you were to link it to Martin going to a commeration up north I could understand but not going to a golf do and then claim not to know how many people were there, it is just any excuse to get stuck into sf to deflect from the wrongdoings of your favorite party, but you don’t have to worry Wolfe will be forgiven as was Leo….
@John Mulligan: Over half a million voters put her in that position to preach
@John Mulligan: the Separation of Powers is the main issue. On the funeral issue two things strike me. Firstly, the actual funeral was socially distanced while the crowds afterwards were not.
Secondly the Garda funeral around the same time and attended by the Commissioner and politicians did n’t observe the protocols as could be seen in the photos of Gardai sitting shoulder to shoulder attest.
@Brendan Greene: you’re not seriously comparing the funeral of a member of our police force in our state with the funeral of a convicted terrorist, member of an organisation that has assassinated members of our police force, in another state are you?
@GrumpyAulFella: the issue in both cases is whether the correct protocols were followed. Unless you are saying that they don’t apply to Garda funerals then the merits or otherwise of the deceased are irrelevant.
Supreme Court Judge Seamus Woulfe punishment was loosing three months pay and stop from hearing cases till Feb. 2021. Mr Woulfe decision was to give these three months salary to charity. yet any funds given to charity can be recouped through tax.
@leartius: Personal charitable donations can NOT be recouped through tax, you really should not make stuff up.
Did anyone ask at all why the man was at golf event in the first place,i thought politicians have no input or contact in judicial system??as mr micheal martin said this lunchtime…
Just to be clear again on what this man’s crime against humanity actually was. He attended a dinner attended by 80 others, less than 24hrs after a public health regulation had come into force limiting attendance at such events to 50 people. Instead of cancelling the event or turning 30 of those invited away at the door, the organisers divided the room into two separate divisions of 40 people each thinking this would comply with regulations. If this is the absolute shlte that can bring the country to the edge of a constitutional crisis then we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves. We’ve already hounded a man, unlikable as he may have been, out of a job in the EU parliament and in the process lost the EU trade portfolio that had potential to be hugely beneficial to this country, particularly with Brexit just around the corner. But none of that matters as long as we can sleep soundly and safely in our beds knowing that punishment has been meted out to those who had the audacity to attend a f%#£ing dinner !!
@Tommy Roche:Just to be clear, if you believe his account of events to Denham, then you believe in the tooth fairy.
@Tommy Roche: To be honest,I don’t think that attending the dinner was the big problem. His lack of self awareness and arrogance displayed in interviews with Denham was,the fact that he didn’t seem to think he had done anything wrong at all. I think he has severely compromised his credibility by showing how far removed he is from reality. I would have issues with him continuing to serve on the Supreme Court,but I’m not quite sure a judge can be sacked for being pompous and self delusional!
Mr Woulfe, “Learn to be what you are, and learn to resign with good grace all that you are not”.
Imagine anyone in SF saying a position was untenable The most untenable organisation ever
Did anyone ask at all why the man was at golf event in the first place,i thought politicians have no input or contact in judicial system??as mr micheal martin said this lunchtime…
Suspicious
@Damien McGrath: its a golf society and like all work golf societies it contains people loosely associated to the place of work.
Go on away home Seamus and sorry for troubling you.
So the Oireachtas Golf Society organised a Golf event and dinner during a pandemic and which was attended by FF&FG and a former Labour Senator,etc.Surely the leaders of FF &FG were aware of this Oireachtas Golf Society event??
Now the Leaders of Coalition ,who themselves saw no consequences for allowing this Oireachtas Golf Society dinner to go ahead,areeting to decide the fate of another attendee of the event??!!The same Coalition who backed the Tanaiste for leaking a Government CONFIDENTIAL NOT FOR CIRCULATION document!
I’m not defending the former AG ,whose advice was never published re Joan Collins’s 2016 Bill re Referendum re Public ownership of water , services which had reached 2nd Stage but then stalled.There should be consequences & sanctions but I don’t think at the moment (I may change my mind)that he should be impeached,that’s a very serious matter.Im unsure as haven’t read enough about correspondence,etc.
@Nuala Mc Namara: are meeting
@Nuala Mc Namara: The dinner, when organised, was in full compliance with public health regulations at the time with a little over 80 attending and the limit allowed was 100. New regulations came into force 20hrs before this dinner was due to start which limited attendances to 50. The Government and NPHET have themselves seen sense when this kind of situation arises, which is precisely why, when nationwide Level 3 was announced, they allowed weddings and functions organised for that weekend with Level 2 limits in mind to go ahead as planned. If they had had the foresight to do this with previous events that coincided with weekends when regulation changes were announced, we would never have heard about this dinner as it would have been entirely within the guidelines.
@Nuala Mc Namara: it is entirely possible that the leaders of FF and FG were unaware of the event. Afaik neither of them play golf, and the Oireachtas golf society, despite its name, had no formal connection with the Oiireachtas. It is certainly the case that they had no power to prevent the event taking place. While I can understand your reluctance to see Woulfe impeached, you can hardly think that he has an ounce of credibility as a Supreme Court judge
@Lesidees: That golf dinner was to celebrate the 50 year anniversary of the Oireachtas Golf Society which consists of members of Oireachtas.
It’s Honorary Life members included:Phil Hogan.former Taoiseachs Brian Cowen,Ends Kenny and Dick Spring, Charlie Mc Creevey etc
Breaking news article:’#Golfgate:Why the Oireachtas Golf Society event has caused such a stir’
If Hogan had to go he must go.
So the Ceann Comhairle told TDs not to make any comment on the controversy in case they have to “adjudicate on the matter”, what does SF leader do? She goes on national radio to discuss the matter!
@Fionn Darland: so your point is that the ceann comphairle can tell democratically elected tds that they cannot comment on issues in the public domain even though he was not elected himself,its called freedom of speech and democracy,you don’t have to agree with their point of view but they have the right to express it and thats refreshing,the alternative is fascism and tow the party line or you are a threat,not a huge sf supporter but when you silence voices you don’t agree with eventually it gets to suppression and for any democracy that is not healthy,ultimately what I am saying is that every healthy democracy needs is opposition no one says you have to agree with it but without it all we have is an echo chamber and that is the opposite of democracy.
@derek hennessy: With free speech comes responsibilities. TDs were asked not to comment so Woulfe can get a fair hearing in any process. Mary Loo going on national airwaves (on a station that her supporters claim is a ‘propaganda machine’), and pre-judging the matter only helps Woulfe. Btw, if you want an sf echo chamber you have come to the right ‘platform’.
@Fionn Darland: as far as I am aware all leaders of the political parties in government have more or less said the same thing on different platforms,listen I am not here to defend sf or say that they are right on every issue because they most certainly are not,my point is merely that we elect politicians to hopefully serve the public good and comment on their views in a revelant way, as far as I can see the process is over because in all fairness what can they do if he refuses to budge,at worst it is bad judgement(pun intended) and that is not illegal,and just in case you are wondering i voted green(shame on me) 1 and soc dems 2,but am not comfortable with this concept of exclusion as it is a dangerous path to follow,you don’t have to agree but at least listen.
Of course she considers his position untenable. It’s not a closely guarded secret that SF do not recognize the courts or the justice system as described in our constitution. If our laws do not apply to them, they are incapable of recognition of his position, whether he did wrong or not. A bit like asking an atheist their opinion God.
@Seosamh Mac Cionnaith: Excellent. that was my lunchtime life. I had forgotten about the SF desire to create a new Socialist Republic. I wonder how many of their young supporters actually read their constitution.
@DeWitt: *lift
Mary Lou is absolutely right after all he made the decision to leave the jurisdiction and be part of a large crowd attending the funeral of a terrorist. That was him…wasn’t it?
@Henry Porter: shhhus n the 26 million n the forgot to give back 30k
never get a vote again don’t know how to run a country only into the ground reptiles
Helen McEntee has some explaining to do??
Rich coming from Sinn Fein
Well done Mary Lou – now you will be removed from any impeachment process on the grounds you are biased. Ah sure the Ceann Comhairle fella care take jump we in Sinn Fein can do our own thing.
Left wing rant from The Big Loo, as usual. the guy does not deserve to lose his career over this. Sure he broke guidelines, not law. sure it looked bad, but not career ending. Where was the righteous SF when she broke the LAW in Northern Ireland to attend he friends funeral. this petty politics is sickening. nearly 800 people dead on the SFDUP watch in NI. shameful
ASK LEO THE LEEK???????
Mr woulfe has no need to worry about impeachment when FF allowed Brian Curtin retire with his gold plated pension,
The stench of hypocrisy from the lady from Rathgar and her comrades is nauseating. It’s perfectly ok to attend the funeral of convicted terrorists in other states with the paramilitary dress code that goes with that and with no social distancing but attending a golf dinner in Clifden apparently ranks above that in terms of crimes against the state. Put your head back down Mary and where it was for the first 6 months of the pandemic while those at the wheel dealt with the crisis unlike your comrades up north.
@GrumpyAulFella: oh.
And so it continues… The train of no accountability or leadership….
First he was the only name in the hat for the job .no one ask any questions, then he attends a dinner with banker’s, politicians and so called elite, then goes on a trump like anti media rage. And now hes the man who cannot be removed.. only in Ireland
What are the Shinners waiting for?
They don’t recognise the courts as legitimate, they don’t recognise the Constitution as legitimate, they refuse to call the State by its correct legal name.
Why don’t they put down an impeachment motion and force the Government parties to vote confidence in Woulfe?
@Lesidees: so please elberate,I do acknowledge that they have a problem with the central criminal court and to be honest when it comes to gang criminal activity I think that is a wrong position to take but there are issues in other cases where it seems like your right to a fair trial by your peers is taken away and that is worrying,is isis such a presence in Ireland that Lisa smyth cannot receive a jury trial,I don’t think so,not defending her in any way but it seems like the ccc is a conviction before trial with a very rare exception,but otherwise I think that sf support the state and its institutional bodies in every way,maybe if I am wrong you can enlighten me,I am open to correction.
@derek hennessy: correction: elaborate
@Luan Willis: point taken,thanks
The only people who seem interested in this and ramming it down people’s necks are the Irish media and their usual agenda or creating drama
Politicians do what they do…different standards. Susan Denham was asked to do a job and did it. That should have been it. The CJ published correspondence (why?) and disagreed with her decision. Too bad. Then Woulfe started to behave badly and arrogantly. I would agree with her decision but Woulfe’s subsequent behaviour changes the dynamic as to his fitness. As does that of the CJ. This is a full blown constitutional crisis which should not be called ‘golfgate’ it’s about attendance at the dinner and the behaviour of individuals. For the record, it’s hairy that a Supreme Court Judge turns the news off (for 1 day?) on holidays….and leaking an unagreed confidential document when you’re (or acting the fool attending a mass funeral when) seem worse to me
Party Leaders playing Politics to see how much Mileage they can Get
But no separation of powers when judges are appointed.
The government are going to get out of this one. Save one of their own
have your say