Results 6,121-6,140 of 18,728 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Committee and Remaining Stages (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: As I stated in my opening speech on Second Stage, the plan is not to have the extra District Court judges assigned to a particular district. The reason for this is to allow them to be effectively deployable at the insistence of the President of the District Court for the sake of flexibility. The districts and their number are currently the subject matter of a proposal to redraw them....

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Committee and Remaining Stages (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: With regard to the proposal to include a reference to Part 3 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, I am advised this would be inappropriate. I do not know why. Part 3 of the 2004 Act refers to court funds and a range of miscellaneous matters. Only one of the 23 sections in Part 3 refers to judicial appointments and this is being replaced. Accordingly, I would not accept the amendment.

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Committee and Remaining Stages (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Whenever legislation is being put through the Houses, one's instincts can make us wonder why we are not taking a certain action. The Parliamentary Counsel always seems to have an answer. On the odd occasion I try to overrule the advice I am given and on the few occasions I have done it the train has come off the rails. It is better to stick to mother's apron strings on such matters.

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Committee and Remaining Stages (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am very grateful to the officials in my Department who worked on the Bill. I am also very grateful to the presidents of the respective courts for their advice given to me about numbers for appointments. I express my gratitude to the Parliamentary Counsel for the hard work done on the Bill to the usual high professional standards.

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." The maximum number of ordinary judges of each court is prescribed by law and can only be altered by way of primary legislation. Legislation currently provides that the number of ordinary judges of the High Court shall not be more than 31. When I use the term "ordinary judges" I am referring to judges other than the President of the court in...

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: They are on their way.

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: No, Deputy. It is not an apology. The statement I have just made is for the record of the House because it is important that when one has an opportunity to talk about the Judiciary without being interrupted, without being misquoted and without being selectively quoted, that one tells the truth. In the case of the Circuit Court, cases are becoming more complex and as a consequence they are...

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Judges' salaries are a charge on the Central Fund and, therefore, there must be legislation underpinning their appointment.

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I have sanctioned 18 extra support staff.

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2007: Second Stage (Resumed) (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: That was a different Brennan.

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Order for Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I move: "That Second Stage be taken now."

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: That is what I said at the beginning and the Senator said it had nothing to do with it.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Section 12 allows a person who has gone to the High Court to sue a newspaper to say that the damages he or she was awarded were inadequate, and then to go to the Supreme Court and say he or she was accused of being corrupt, that the jury heard the evidence over ten days and awarded him or her €10,000, that he or she was a politician, that this was a serious allegation and that he or she was...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It said it did not need to be tinkered with to make it convention compliant, which is a different proposition. It is great when there is a case with which one cannot see any problems. The case the Senator is addressing here is that because the Irish Government successfully upheld the status quo in Strasbourg, it was somehow bound never to amend it. That is simply not a runner.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It is not a runner.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am making the simple and straightforward case that this is not mandatory. It does not say that the Supreme Court shall impose its own will. It simply says it may do it. It may well be that, in most cases, the Supreme Court will decide not to do it and send it back. At some point, as in the recent case, the Supreme Court should surely be in a position to say that this is ridiculous; that...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: One solution would be if the power to make a decision was circumscribed so that the Supreme Court might, where it is of the view it would be unjust to remit the matter to the High Court, or where the parties consent, then it would deal with the question of damages. It has to deal with its own award of damages. Clearly, at some stage the cycle has to stop. I take Senator Norris's point that...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The effect of this amendment would be to deprive judges of absolute privilege when they administer justice. This would be a very far-reaching change. It would be extraordinary if a judge were liable to be sued because he said he thought somebody was the lowest piece of work that ever came into his court or he believed somebody murdered his wife or whatever else. I do not think we should...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——for stories which everybody knew to be right. He never even had to testify in the cases. He simply demanded that they prove the case and then walked away from it. This provision simply requires that somebody swears an affidavit saying that what is in his or her pleading is correct. In other words, if the pleading is false and the person knows it to be false, he or she commits...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: All that is required is that the plaintiff or the defendant swear a verifying affidavit, which does not mean that they prove these matters are true from their own knowledge but that they are true to the best of their knowledge and belief. If somebody knew it was false and it was later proven that he or she knew it was false, the affidavit would amount to perjury. Subsection (3) refers to...