1 Muirhevna
Are TDs
and Senators competent to decide on new Courts Bill?
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
The
recently announced Civil Liability and Courts Bill sets out changes to the operation of the “In
Camera” rule in Family Law Courts. There
is no other area where the public would accept Laws being passed by TDs and Senators who are
prevented from examining that which they are planning to legislate for.
The
“In Camera” rule in Family courts is so secretive that not even our elected
politicians are allowed to know, discuss or consider the details of what go on
inside a family court case. As such it is questionable as to
whether the legislature, which is itself prohibited from knowing the detail of
what has been occurring in Family Law courts, has the COMPETENCE to decide how
the rule should be changed.
In
considering this Bill, our politicians are, by definition, limited to anecdotal
evidence in their considerations. Since the only evidence of what actually occurs
in Family Courts is anecdotal, then the credibility of any sources for the
anecdotes should be assessed in terms of reliability and trustworthiness.
This
anecdotal evidence can come effectively from two fundamentally different
groups:
a)
Judges, court administrators, solicitors, barristers,
expert witnesses etc who benefit financially
from the acrimony between the
litigants.
b)
the
end users, and lay litigants, none of whom are paid to be there, are not part
of any legal community and very few of whom wish to keep coming back, since one
way or another they alone pick up all the costs, both emotional and financial.
Which group is more reliable in terms of
recounting what actually goes on in court?
On the one hand there is no incentive for the paid professionals to
remove or modify the “In Camera” rule. If there was the rule would have been
changed years ago. On the other hand the end users and lay litigants are in a
“Black Hole” where any unfair treatment they experience is protected by the
veil of secrecy. As there are no records kept of the evidence and statements
made in family courts these litigants need the removal of the “In Camera”
secrecy laws to expose professional and judicial misbehaviour. At a minimum, given that the only evidence
available to our politicians is anecdotal, then both groups, legal professionals and end users
deserve equal attention.
To date the control of framing this bill
has been effectively in the hands of the legal and professional group. The legitimacy of the groups who represent
end users and lay litigants should be acknowledged and they should be given the
resources to brief our elected representatives as they undertake the
consideration of the new Courts Bill.
Yours Etc
Liam O Gogain
Chairman ParentalEquality.ie
Ph:-
087-2543997