The problem with this ruling and what the government are doing is that the government are doing things that should only be allowed after a "state of emergency" has been declared. The government have made laws restricting citisens rights of travel and association. Surely, this is an argument that the High Court should be allowed to hear. When the constitution says that the Guards can not enter your dwelling except by law, surely when it states "by law" it means by lawful procedure, which means with a warrant issued by a judge on lawful grounds. The Constitution is there to stop governments making unjust laws .Government made law is subservient to the constitution not the other way around. This at least should be grounds for a hearing by the Hligh court . The other reason people believe that John Waters and Gemma O'Doherty got a raw deal is that that the purpose of the "alpplication for leave to apply" is to prevent costs for the ordinary person who is generally up against the state or large inststutions. So why was a full legal team from the government there. This defeats the whole purpose of the "application to apply" and potentially doubles the eventual costs to the applicant even if successful and results in crippling costs for the applicant if the application is unsuccesdful. Also the judge allegadly informed the government of the application. Which as far as I know is not normal procedure. I do not support John Waters and Gemma O'Doherty's cause, but this modern belief that the right to justice is only for those we support is perverting the justice system.
its so clear that waters and o odoherty did NOT employ a lawyer, it was a DIY job and so badly done, they even tripped up on the constitution rights which are NOT guaranteed!
I dont agree. You see a judicicial review if it found the state had acted disproportionately would require a court to consider which parts of the constitution were breached, and what actions should be taken or what remedy should be pursued. I thought a judicial review was only to establish that a case has actions that are manifestly faulty, not to direct parties to undo or remedy?
@@ciaranstaunton the mentioned case Appeal is about leave for high Court judicial review being refused . The merits of there case although were mentioned have never been decided fully by the court. At the present moment it seems the matter is now moot with restrictions now gone
I wish the people that like to wave the Constitution in other people's faces while bellowing about their rights would take the time to actually read it...."save in accordance with the law" empowers the state and "as far as is practicable" let's it off the hook.
@@jimneysweep9810 dealing with the facts. Most of the comments on here have little or no relevance to the video itself. I am not a constitutional solicitor. In this hugely complex area, I am is ignorant as most. The difference is that at least I know it!
Whether you think they were right or wrong, their case was presented terribly. No work done on it and based of pure ego. It was easy to dismiss. There was a case to make it, but they didn't even try to make a proper case
@@ciaranstaunton swastikas are all over India, you need to travel a little... bolcheviks killed over 200 millions people in just 100years, not 6 millions, hahaha smarty pants!
The problem with this ruling and what the government are doing is that the government are doing things that should only be allowed after a "state of emergency" has been declared. The government have made laws restricting citisens rights of travel and association. Surely, this is an argument that the High Court should be allowed to hear. When the constitution says that the Guards can not enter your dwelling except by law, surely when it states "by law" it means by lawful procedure, which means with a warrant issued by a judge on lawful grounds. The Constitution is there to stop governments making unjust laws .Government made law is subservient to the constitution not the other way around. This at least should be grounds for a hearing by the Hligh court .
The other reason people believe that John Waters and Gemma O'Doherty got a raw deal is that that the purpose of the "alpplication for leave to apply" is to prevent costs for the ordinary person who is generally up against the state or large inststutions. So why was a full legal team from the government there. This defeats the whole purpose of the "application to apply" and potentially doubles the eventual costs to the applicant even if successful and results in crippling costs for the applicant if the application is unsuccesdful. Also the judge allegadly informed the government of the application. Which as far as I know is not normal procedure. I do not support John Waters and Gemma O'Doherty's cause, but this modern belief that the right to justice is only for those we support is perverting the justice system.
So you didn’t listen to the judgement?
It's odd
its so clear that waters and o odoherty did NOT employ a lawyer, it was a DIY job and so badly done, they even tripped up on the constitution rights which are NOT guaranteed!
That is very informative. Thank you.
Best to leave it to the supreme Court for the interpretation of grant of leave for judicial review which is in some disarray at the moment
I dont agree. You see a judicicial review if it found the state had acted disproportionately would require a court to consider which parts of the constitution were breached, and what actions should be taken or what remedy should be pursued. I thought a judicial review was only to establish that a case has actions that are manifestly faulty, not to direct parties to undo or remedy?
@@ciaranstaunton the mentioned case Appeal is about leave for high Court judicial review being refused . The merits of there case although were mentioned have never been decided fully by the court. At the present moment it seems the matter is now moot with restrictions now gone
Who beat Art nobody Thomas. He in top spot politically. When come into affect 2024.
Not From Mate, with, big difference.
Terry your channel is fantastic, thank you.
Liked and subscribed. 💚
Thanks 👍
Art can topple that Tory government England Britain yes. Austria and Italy you already won that Tom.
I wish the people that like to wave the Constitution in other people's faces while bellowing about their rights would take the time to actually read it...."save in accordance with the law" empowers the state and "as far as is practicable" let's it off the hook.
Yes, no right is absolute. Court of Appeal will find this tomorrow, too, I would expect.
It's all odd
The iron booth will always win, people won t stick together, we are to easily divided. Im on team Garad, its the garda or it' YOU KNOW WHO...
I was going to correct your various grammatical mistakes, but they are too numerous. I suspect you did not pass the bar
@@jimneysweep9810 dealing with the facts. Most of the comments on here have little or no relevance to the video itself. I am not a constitutional solicitor. In this hugely complex area, I am is ignorant as most. The difference is that at least I know it!
incroyable!
Whether you think they were right or wrong, their case was presented terribly. No work done on it and based of pure ego. It was easy to dismiss. There was a case to make it, but they didn't even try to make a proper case
Agreed. It looked like a massive ego trip
Ego? What? Whatever about how it was presented they had nothing to gain
supreme court today........
26/01/2o22
look up ryanair case........high court........
I am better with joe Biden yes.
Gemma O Doherty looks like Frodo Baggins
John Waters looks like Gandalf
Dee looks like Gimli
How is Dee’s case with the Ominusman going?
@@ciaranstaunton how the hell am I meant to know?
Gemma has blood on her hands, she is responsible for the death of a young Garda.....
She is a nasty piece of work.
The gardaí have a high suicide rate. It's nothing to do with Gemma
Dandy Ghandi and Fine Gael have way more blood on their hands..
@@veloc123 careful now, your swastika is showing
@@ciaranstaunton swastikas are all over India, you need to travel a little... bolcheviks killed over 200 millions people in just 100years, not 6 millions, hahaha smarty pants!