Courts Service goes ahead with plans to move Munster district court sittings
The Courts Service is moving ahead with the transfer of sittings from Youghal in Co Cork to Dungarvan, Co Waterford, meaning a 60km round tip for gardaí and court attendees.
It also plans to move sittings from Cashel and Carrick-on-Suir to Clonmel.
A spokesman for the Courts Service has confirmed that the district judge assigned to the areas wrote to the Head of Circuit & District Court Operations in March indicating that he is transferring the sittings.
The transfer comes into effect from November 1.
'Additionally, with effect from June 1 there will be an extra sitting in District 21 on the second Friday of each month where cases from Youghal will be heard in Dungarvan," a spokesperson said.
"It's planned that this additional sitting will be for Child and Family Agency matters. Details of these changes among others...can be found on the Courts Service website,' the spokesman said.
He added that the Courts Service has now commenced engaging with the various stakeholders such as legal practitioners, gardaí, State solicitors, the Probation Service, the Irish Prison Service, local family law user representative groups, unions representing court staff, and others, to explore any possible impacts and unintended consequences of the proposed transfers. The spokesman added:
Upon completion of this work the Courts Service will report on its findings to the relevant District Judge and make operational plans accordingly
The spokesman added that it 'has no record of having received communications about this matter from Cork County Council".
That came as a surprise to Youghal-based Independent councillor Mary Linehan-Foley who won unanimous support at a council meeting three weeks ago to write to the Courts Service and department of justice urging it to keep court sittings where they are.
She and other colleagues, including Fianna Fáil councillor Ann Marie Ahern, said the closure of Youghal courthouse would be a retrograde step.
They said it would lead to a reduced garda presence in Youghal because they would be out of the town far longer while attending cases in Dungarvan. In addition, the move would put an extra financial burden on witnesses, especially if they had to pay for bus journeys between the two towns.
Independent councillor Ger Curley, who lives in Cobh, claimed that since court sittings transferred from Cobh to Midleton there has been a lower presence of gardaí in the harbour town.
Read More
Overcrowding will cause 'tragedy', prison officers warn
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
19 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Bob Vylan: Is there a clear legal basis for a case against them?
Police in the UK have confirmed they are investigating a performance by punk duo Bob Vylan at the Glastonbury Festival, after the group's singer led chants of "Death to the IDF [Israel Defence Forces]" during their set on Saturday, 28 June. Several UK-based politicians and commentators have condemned the remarks, with some claiming they amount to antisemitism. What chance is there of the case progressing to prosecution or trial? To try to understand that we asked legal experts where UK law draws the line on protest, free speech, hate crime, and public order. What are the police investigating? On Monday evening, Avon and Somerset Police confirmed they had "recorded" Bob Vylan's Glastonbury performance as a public order incident and have launched a criminal investigation into both the band and Irish rap trio Kneecap, based on potential hate crime or public order offences linked to their sets on Saturday. It has not yet been defined which parts of either group's performances are being examined as part of the criminal investigation. Within minutes of Bob Vylan coming off stage at the festival, several accounts online accused the group of antisemitism. During their set, they had led the crowd with chants of "Death to the IDF," and "Free, Free Palestine." Over the days that followed, the band faced both support and criticism for the language used. While most vocal support came from pro-Palestinian fans, activists, and fellow artists, the band has faced significant backlash from politicians, commentators and prominent Jewish figures, including the UK Chief Rabbi. On Sunday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer labelled the comments as "hate speech." Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy followed on Monday, arguing that because Israel's military conscription system requires all young people to serve in the military "chanting death to the IDF is equivalent to calling for the death of every single Israeli Jew." Despite pushing back strongly against accusations of antisemitism on Tuesday, and saying they were "being targeted for speaking up," the band have since been dropped by their agency and management, had upcoming shows cancelled, and now face the prospect of a potentially lengthy legal battle. What would form the basis of a prosecution? While the police can investigate and recommend any charges, it is ultimately up to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to launch a prosecution. Prof David Mead, an expert in protest and public order law at the University of East Anglia, says any prosecution would have to pass two main legal tests. "First, the CPS would need to be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. Second, they would have to decide whether bringing charges is in the public interest," Prof Mead said. Prof Mead added that a conviction would ultimately require a jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all elements of the offence are proven, including the words used, how they were intended, and their likely impact on the audience. The legal burden: What prosecutors must prove Jonathan Hall KC is a leading UK barrister and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation appointed by the UK's Home Secretary. Speaking to RTÉ, Mr Hall said the key piece of legislation that could be used against the member of the group Bob Vylan who uses the stage name 'Bobbie Vylan' would be Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986. "The principal candidate for people who make public pronouncements that could bring down hatred on groups, on minority groups or protected groups, is what's called stirring up racial hatred," Mr Hall said. However, he added that the police could struggle to bring charges under that legislation "unless their investigation turns up something that we don't know about." "It's quite hard to show off the back of saying 'Death to the IDF' that he intended people in the audience to hate Jews," Mr Hall said, "that's because what he said was to a military of a country - although, there is an exceptionally strong link between Jews and that country." There is another possible interpretation of that same offence, Mr Hall said, that even if Bobby Vylan "didn't intend" people in the audience to hate Jews "he must have known that was the likely effect." "Again, I think it's quite hard to prove the likely effect of saying, 'death to the IDF' that people are going to hate Jews, rather than just be very hostile towards that military body," Mr Hall said. Prof Mead agrees that the key legal test hinges on interpretation. "The battle is this: should 'Death to the IDF' be seen as aimed at stirring up hatred against the Israeli military, or against Israelis as a people more broadly? Only if it targets a group defined by race or nationality can the offence possibly be made out," he said. When does protest cross into harassment? However, Prof Mead says another charge could potentially be brought against Bob Vylan under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which covers threatening or abusive language likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. "This is the most commonly used public order 'speech' crime as it is easiest to prove and thus very likely here that CPS would go for it," Prof Mead said. The CPS would only need to show that someone present was likely to feel harassed or alarmed, even if no one actually did, a threshold already established in case law, Prof Mead explained. Mr Hall also said it would be possible to bring a case on those grounds but that he would "have to see what the investigation shows, because it's hard to prove that he [Bob Vylan's singer] realised that there were Jews in the audience, and he was saying this in order to harass them." In a statement on Tuesday, Bob Vylan attempted to clarify their position saying: "We are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of people," adding that they "are for the dismantling of a violent military machine" that "has destroyed much of Gaza." Whether or not that defence holds weight would depend heavily on intent, which is central to any criminal prosecution under UK law, Mr Hall says. "The 'intending' is really important with criminal law, particularly with what you call speech offences," he said. "From a criminal law perspective, the circumstances in which you make it a crime to say something are limited. One of the key limits is what do you intend, or what do you believe is going to happen?" Referring to the music of NWA, a hip-hop group that rose to prominence in Compton, California in the 1980s, Mr Hall said there are examples in their music which is "implicitly saying 'kill the cops.'" "No one's going to say that's what they were intending anyone should do as a result of it," he said. "I think that if you had a prosecution of someone involved in a music festival, they would inevitably say, 'I'm a performer, I'm on stage. How can you begin to prove that I meant that like some gang lord telling his lieutenant to carry out a hit?'" How does this compare to other recent cases? In recent days, a number of prominent UK politicians and commentators - including the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp - have likened the situation to the case of Lucy Connolly. Connolly was jailed for 31 months in October 2024 after using social media to call for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire during the Southport Riots last summer. In a post on X, Mr Philp said of Bob Vylan "they should be arrested and prosecuted – just like some of those who did the same during the riots." The case has also reignited claims of a so-called "two-tier" approach to policing. Andrea Jenkyns, a Reform UK mayor, said that if Bob Vylan are not arrested over their chants, it would be evidence of a "two-tiered justice system." But there is little legal basis for that claim, according to Prof David Mead. "The idea of a 'two-tier' criminal justice system following the conviction of Lucy Connolly is, in my view, very misplaced. The IDF is a powerful state army thousands of miles away. Those seeking refuge in the UK are vulnerable private citizens at immediate risk should anyone take up her suggestion," Prof Mead said. Steve Kuncewicz is a partner at a law firm in Manchester and specialises in legal issues involving social media. In the Lucy Connolly case, he said, there was a "very different set of an awful lot of other evidence that went into that case." "That was a very specific call to action to cause harm to a very specific part of the community. There was a real risk in... the Southport riots, that that would be likely to happen." "It's a recurrence that's being drawn, but again, it's a very dangerous one, and it's an incorrect one. It's the two completely different kinds of incidents." The likeliest outcome? Ultimately, any prosecution would hinge on proving intent, that the Bob Vylan chant was meant to stir up racial hatred or harass Jewish people. "At the moment, I think that off the back of what I've seen from the footage of Glastonbury, I'm sceptical that they would have that," Mr Hall said. He's also, he says, "sceptical that you could prove in the course of law that he was using the IDF as a substitute code word for Jews." In the current climate in the UK, Mr Kuncewicz believes the wider political pressure could still influence how police approach the case. "Whatever happens, it's going to be very, very heavily scrutinised. But I do think given the current atmosphere we're in, the police may feel a bit more compelled to make an example here because they might see it as an incitement to violence."
Irish Independent
20 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Amnesty International says Israel using aid system to commit genocide
©Associated Press Amnesty International issued a report yesterday claiming a controversial Israeli- and US-backed system to distribute aid in Gaza uses starvation tactics against Palestinians to continue to commit genocide. The UK-based human rights group condemned Israel and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which the US and Israel have backed to take over aid distribution in Gaza from a network led by the United Nations. Register for free to read this story Register and create a profile to get access to our free stories. You'll also unlock more free stories each week.
The Journal
a day ago
- The Journal
Taoiseach warns trade ban on Israeli settlements could hit Irish companies under US anti-boycott laws
TAOISEACH MICHEÁL MARTIN has said the government must tread carefully when considering the expansion of its proposed trade ban with Israeli settlements, stressing that including services could inadvertently harm Irish-based multinational companies due to US anti-boycott legislation. His comments come after Tánaiste Simon Harris last week published a fresh outline of the Occupied Territories Bill, which seeks to prohibit the import of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements. The bill will affect imports from the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights – territories occupied since 1967 and widely recognised under international law as illegally held. While the current draft focuses on goods only, Harris has signalled that he wants to include services in a future version of the bill. However, Martin expressed concern about the legal and economic risks of doing so. 'That's an issue we have to factor in, because we don't want any companies or multinationals in Ireland inadvertently being caught up in this,' he said, referring to US anti-boycott laws. Martin made the comments today during a visit to Japan. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo 'We do have to factor in the presence of American legislation, the boycotting divestment legislation, which is already passed by numerous states in America, which would penalise any company that, from an American perspective, participates in boycotts.' Martin said that several US states have passed anti-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) laws, which penalise companies seen as boycotting Israel or Israeli-controlled areas. More than 30 US states have passed so-called anti-BDS laws that penalise companies or entities seen to be boycotting Israel or Israeli-controlled territories. These laws often apply regardless of whether the boycott targets Israel itself or the settlements specifically – something Martin said poses a risk of misinterpretation. 'Whilst we're just involved in the Occupied Territories, not Israel as a country, there's a concerted campaign in terms of misrepresenting the Irish position, so that's an issue we have to factor in,' Martin said. Advertisement Martin also addressed criticism that the government is backing away from the moral argument in favour of protecting economic interests. 'It's not commercial, like it's putting bread and butter on people's table,' he said, noting the presence of 'hundreds of thousands' of jobs in Ireland linked to multinational employers. 'The object of the exercise here is to put pressure on Israel, not to disadvantage Ireland unduly and that's a factor.' The Taoiseach acknowledged the symbolic importance of the legislation, but said it was important to be 'clear-eyed' about its potential impact. 'There's no point in Ireland coming out worse if it has no impact on Israel. That's the only point I'm making, we have to be clear-eyed in terms of the impact. People should know about the impact.' He also raised practical concerns about how a ban on services would even be enforced. 'How do you actually detect, how do you punish the offence, the practicalities around all of that. Those are real and the bill is fundamentally symbolic, it's important.' The Occupied Territories Bill, first introduced in 2018, proposed banning the import and sale of goods and services originating in illegal settlements, as well as the extraction of resources from those areas. The revised version of the bill, now known as the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill, would criminalise only the importation of goods, under the Customs Act 2015. Services are not currently covered, though Tánaiste Simon Harris has said he is seeking further legal advice and wants to bring services into scope where possible. 'There isn't another country in the European Union that you can visit today and ask a government minister about their bill to ban trade and the detail of it, because they don't have one,' Harris said last Wednesday. 'Ireland is leading – but we have to do this properly.' The bill is expected to go before an Oireachtas committee for pre-legislative scrutiny later this year. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
