Talk:Law of the Republic of Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How to put this - describing UK legislation[edit]

Suppose that I write an article about an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in 1837 (say - Wills Act 1837). Until 6 December 1922, this was law of England and Wales and Ireland. As of 6 December 1922 it then became law of the Irish Free State and something subsequently happened to it that I am not qualified to describe. On 7 December 1922 it became law of Northern Ireland. At some point it stopped being the law of "Ireland". I am looking for a form of words to put in the article. Does this work?:

The Act was in force in Ireland until partition. It conseqeuntly became the law of the Irish Free State on 6 December 1922, and then of its successor states. When the autonomous region of Northern Ireland seceeded from the Irish Free State and rejoined the United Kingdom on 7 December 1922, the Act became the law of Northern Ireland.

? In fact I think that if we work something out I shall create a template.Cutler (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that their is an act, or treaty that details continuity and this could be a better approach (of stating it and referencing it)?
I am not sure that templates would be permitted in the fashion you recommend, in particular, from here:
Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.
Djegan (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're making this overly complicated. An Act simply stays with the territory. Acts which applied to the island of Ireland before partition continue apply until they are changed by a parliament with jurisdiction. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I very much doubt that any UK court would ever accept the idea that Northern Ireland ever seceded from the UK, however temporarily. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--MBRZ48 (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British legal system[edit]

"There is no British legal system; Scots Law is distinctly different from IRL and ENG"- MBRZ48

I quite realise that there are different jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. There is, however, a framework for how they interrelate with each other, and many areas of law which apply identically throughout the UK. This framework and the common laws, which include British constitutional law constitute the British legal system. If the UK didn't have a single legal system, it wouldn't be single state. And the relationship between England/Wales and Scotland would be more like that which applies between the UK and Canada. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on re-writing the Treaty and Acts of Union. The Scottish legal system is not part of any other legal system. "British constitutional law" is a concept rather than a system and as featured in McCormick v. Lord Advocate, Scottish constitutional law is not the same as English constitutional law. On the basis that "there is a framework for how they interrelate" then your argument abolishes Irish, Scots and English Law and replaces them all with European and EC Law. - MBRZ48
If it doesn't exit it's a bit curious that the House of Lords talk about as if it did, isn't it? [1]. Not only does the British legal system exist, it gets 1,840 results in Google Scholar. I guess I could argue this one out, but in the end this isn't an article on the British legal system, it's on Irish law. I'll replace the reference to the "Irish legal system" to one on "Irish law". You can hardly deny there's such a thing as British law. Wikipedia even has an article on this. It's called Law of the United Kingdom. Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, please give a definition of what you mean by the phrase "legal system", before you say that Britain doesn't have one. I do not believe this is as simple an idea as you appear to suggest. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase IME usually refers to a distinct set of laws (and the associated judicial system) not directly affected by another set of laws. While the Westminster Parliament has the capability of passing statutes applicable to Scotland as well as England and Wales (or the UK as a whole) there are still separate judicial systems involved which each have their own chief law officer and are not bound by each other's decisions (although they can if necessary "borrow" decisions from each other or from other jurisdictions within certain limits). There is no "parent/child" relationship (like some aspects of the USA systems?) between the legal systems, rather a brother/sister relationship. There is a "shared facility" WRT civil matters provided by the House of Lords sitting as a final court of appeal for all the jurisdictions of the UK but when it does so it acts in each case as a court of the relevant jurisdiction not as a "UK court" (i.e. it "wears a different hat" for each); the House of Lords does not deal with Scottish criminal law, the final court of appeal for criminal matters in Scotland being the High Court of Justiciary sitting as an appeal court. There are further complications due next year with some appeal functions going "upstairs" to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if a case involves devolution; that body already acts as a final appeal court for various Commonwealth countries but using the laws of the relevant country for each case. The description given in [2] (Justis Publishing Ltd.) seems to closely match any "official" explanations of the various judicial systems in the UK which I have encountered.--MBRZ48 (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only definition I can find on the internet is "a system of interpreting laws". French courts don't have to follow their own decisions but nonetheless seem to form a legal system. Moreover the French have two entirely separate court systems (much more so than the UK) without the possibility of appeal from one to the other. I agree that they are separate legal systems in the UK, but I'm not sure that means that there isn't a British legal system as well.
When you said that "British constitutional law is a concept rather than a system", it seems to be a bit of a let out. Fundamentally British constitutional law is law which is interpreted by courts. And when push comes to shove it is for the courts of final appeal in the UK (whether the House of Lords and/or the Privy Council) to decide what that law is. When the House of Lords decided Faactortame, they decided for the UK not just England and Wales.
That seems to have treated the relevant Secretary of State as an English entity under English Law and thus did not _directly_ (distinct from consequentially) affect Scotland. The effect in Scotland would seem to be any change in the Westminster-originated laws applicable or IMU a Scottish Court would look to the now-established EU law anyway and judge accordingly if Westminster dragged their feet in making appropriate changes. --MBRZ48 (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rules on precedent are hardly relevant given some (actually most) legal systems don't have any rules on precedent at all. When the House of Lords decided to "disregard" an act of parliament (which I'm pretty sure applied to the whole of the UK), this was hardly something that Scottish courts might be encouraged to do as well. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that when the law lords, in whatever guise, interpret an act of parliament which applies throughout the UK, that the interpretation applies throughout the UK as well. The difference between direct and consequential affect in such circumstances is next to null. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I really wanted to say in the article was that the Republic has judicial review of primary legislation and the UK doesn't. Scottish (and Northern Irish?) courts may well exercise judicial review over devolved acts and maybe even over pre-devolution UK statutes, but I'm still pretty sure they couldn't decide to ignore the explicit wording of the Westminster Act passed more recently, no matter how offensive or unjust the outcome might be. (I do admit current opinion on the inviolability doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty is in flux.)
All this having been said, since there's no consensus on there being a British Legal system, I'll put back the English legal system. In is the latter which is really the cousin of Irish law anyway. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of pre-Independent court decisions[edit]

I had previously written in this article that:

"While the doctrine [of stare decisis] clearly means that the present High Court is bound by decision of the present Supreme Court, it is not altogether clear whether the decisions of courts which previously performed the function of courts of last final appeal in Ireland — such as the British House of Lords — bind the present High Court."

An anonymous editor has replaced this with:

"Decisions of courts which previously performed the function of courts of last final appeal in Ireland — such as the British House of Lords — do not bind the Irish Courts."

The anonymous editor gives Irish Shell v. Elm Motors [1984] IR 200 as a source for this proposition quoting the judgement of McCarthy J saying that:

"In no sense are our Courts a continuation of, or successors to, the British courts."

In Elm Motors the Supreme Court was comprised of three judges. The entirety of the judgements of the other two judges are as follows:

"Griffin J.
I agree with the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice McCarthy, save and except in respect of that portion of his judgment which deals with the effect of decisions of the House of Lords, the English Court of Appeal, or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and of the effect of Article 50 of the Constitution. In respect of these matters I neither agree nor disagree, as they were not argued or discussed on the hearing of this appeal. I would express no opinion on them, and would reserve any such opinion until such questions arise and are argued in an appropriate case.
O'Higgins C.J.
I also agree and add the same reservations as are expressed in the judgment of Mr. Justice Griffin."

I think I'll revert the anonymous editor's edits. I'll also revert his/her changing of judgement to judgment, given that it is normally spelt with two es in modern Hibernian English. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_(law)#Spelling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.105.17 (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stare Decisis Hibernia[edit]

I notice that an anon has recently added a link to the Stare Decisis Hibernia blog. Whilst technically a blog which should not normally be linked to from a Wikipedia article, I'd recommend a WP:IAR. As brief look at the site should reveal why. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 July 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

– Ireland is the correct name of the state. Government of Ireland (1937). Constitution of Ireland. Dublin: Stationery Office. . dwhelan (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=1220882652"