Archive for the “Irish Society” Category
The CAO needs no introduction to the present generation of school-leavers or their parents. Since 1976 it has enabled our institutions of third-level learning to reconcile annually the choices of the hopefuls — more than 60,000 last year — seeking to embark on a chosen career path.
This is how Fennelly J began his judgment for the Supreme Court in Central Applications Office v Minister for Community Rural and Galeltacht Affairs [2010] IESC 32 (13 May 2010). The Court granted a declaration that respondent Minister did not have the power under the Official Languages Act, 2003 (also here) to designate the applicant as a public body subject to obligations imposed by the Act concerning the conduct of its affairs in both official languages. The CAO today publishes its second round of offers of third level places for the forthcoming academic year, and in the inauspicious technical landscape of a Supreme Court appeal, Fennelly J provided an excellent primer on the operations of the Central Applications Office (the CAO; logo, above left):
is a company limited by guarantee and is a non-profit body. It was formed in 1976 and is based in Galway. … The State has no responsibility for its operation. The members of the CAO are the third-level institutions which it serves. Prior to the establishment of the CAO in 1976, there was no centralised system for processing applications from students seeking admission to third level. … The universities … decided to form a single body to process applications. The CAO now has 44 participant Higher Education Institutions …
The process by which the CAO matches applications (from students) and offers (from institutions) is as follows. Each student makes a single application to the CAO early in the year. The student specifies, in order of preference, the preferred colleges and courses of study. Each institution decides on the number of places it will offer in each category and informs the CAO. The CAO relates the student’s application with [that student's] Leaving Certificate results. It then makes an offer to the student on a form described as “offer notice” which specifies the course being offered and the institution offering it. It invites the student to return a part of the form specifying acceptance. …
This is a far more elegant explanation than the one I essayed in an earlier post, in which I went on to explain that grades of the last-admitted candidate to a course can be regarded as the cut-off for qualification for entry to that course, and that these grades can be expressed as a function of points in a range from 0 to 600. In that earlier post, I set out the points levels for entry into various law courses on the basis of the CAO’s first round of offers.
Each year, not all of the CAO’s offers are accepted, with the result that some courses have vacancies. The third level institutions notify the CAO of the vacancies, and it issues a further round of offers. Where the points of the last-admitted candidate on this round are lower than those of the last-admitted candidate in the first round, the CAO also publishes the revised points cut-off. This year, the second round of offers of places was made today, and the points requirements for some law courses were revised accordingly. (Of course, some of these offers will not be accepted, and the third level institutions and the CAO will continue to make further offers as necessary to fill their courses).
In the table below, I set out the final points requirements for law degrees in the various third level institutions. The first number, in bold font, is the final points requirement. Where the points were revised in round 2, the points for round 1 are then set out in regular font, prefaced by “R1:”. Finally, for the sake of completeness, where the course was offered last year, the final points for 2009 are set out in italics in parentheses.
Athlone IT
AL057 Business and Law 250 (n/a)
AL058 Accounting and Law 255 R1:310 (n/a)
Carlow IT
CW708 Law 320 (300)
CW938 Business with Law 300 (290)
University College Cork
CK301 Law 485 (485)
CK302 Law and French 490 (510)
CK303 Law and German 475 (505)
CK304 Law and Irish 515 (525*)
CK305 Law (Clinical) 505 (515*)
CK306 Law (International) 535 R1:540 (540)
Dublin Business School
DB514 Business and Law 260 (245)
DB568 Law 205 R1:260 (230)
Dublin City University
DC230 Economics Politics and Law 400 R1:405 (415)
DC232 Law and Society (BCL) 440 R1:445 (445)
Griffith College Dublin and Griffith College Cork
GC203 Law (Cork) 310 (210)
GC403 Law (Dublin) 300 (185)
GC404 Business and Law (Dublin) 265 (225)
Trinity College Dublin
TR004 Law 515* (520*)
TR017 Law and Business 550 R1:555* (555)
TR018 Law and French 555* R1:570 (550)
TR019 Law and German 510* (470)
TR020 Law and Political Science 560* (555)
University College Dublin
DN009 Law (BCL) 480 R1:480* (470)
DN021 Business and Law 480 R1:485 (480)
DN028 BCL Maîtrise 500 R1:530 (550)
DN029 Law with French Law (BCL) 545 (505)
DN060 Law with History 510 ()
DN065 Law with Politics 505 R1:510 (500)
DN066 Law with Philosophy 515 (505)
DN067 Law with Economics 500 R1:510 (500)
NUI Galway
GY101 Arts 350* R1:355* (355) (depending on subject choice and progression rules, this can lead to a BA in Legal Science)
GY250 Corporate Law 385 R1:390 (395)
GY251 Civil Law 445 (440)
Limerick IT
LC231 Law and Taxation 300 (350)
University of Limerick
LM020 Law and Accounting 445 (455)
LM029 Law Plus 440 (455)
NUI Maynooth
MH101 Arts 375 (375) (Law within Arts: Law can be studied with other Arts subjects in first year, and students fulfilling the necessary criteria can transfer to one of the law degrees)
MH115 Law (BCL) and Arts 450 (465)
MH406 Law and Business 450 (450)
Waterford Institute of Technology
WD079 Business Management with Law 300 (290)
WD140 Legal Studies 305 (315)
Other law courses are also administered through the CAO; and, in the table below, I set out their final points requirements. Again, the first number, in bold font, is the final points requirement; a number in regular font – if any – is the round 1 cut-off; and the final points for last year – if any – are set out in italics in a parenthesis.
IT Carlow
CW706 Legal Studies 285 (n/a)
CW926 Business with Law 260 R1:280 (210)
Dublin Business School
DB580 Legal Studies AQA (AQA)
DB581 Legal and Business Studies 160 (AQA)
DB582 Legal Studies AQA (AQA)
DB583 Legal and Business Studies 135 (AQA)
Letterkenny IT
LY207 Law 145 (95)
Waterford IT
WD013 Legal Studies 270 (300)
These lists follow the order provided by the CAO. The asterisk * means that not all on this points score were offered places, whilst AQA means all qualified applicants were offered places.
No Comments »
Many things about Ireland bemuse visitors to our shores. Two of the most difficult to explain are our electoral system and the programme by which third level places are allocated. I’ll leave the former to other election anoraks for the time being, but the latter is much in the news this week, so I’ll try to give a simple account of how it works.
The Central Applications Office (logo, above left) processes all applications to first year undergraduate courses in the country’s various third level institutions. In early summer, students at the end of their secondary (high) school careers sit a state examination, and the results are published in early August. During the course of that final year, most of the students will have filled in a list of their preferred third level courses and returned it to the CAO. In mid-August, the CAO assign university places to students based on their exam results.
Allocation of places is simply a function of demand and supply. A third level institution will inform the CAO of the number of places in a given course, and the CAO’s computer will allot places on the course to the highest qualified applicants who had applied for that course. The grades of the last-admitted candidate can be regarded as the cut-off for qualification for entry to that course.
In the final state exam, each letter grade is assigned a level of points (eg, an A1 is worth 100 points, a C3 is worth 60 points, etc). The CAO takes each candidate’s best 6 grades to calculate the points total of each candidate (eg, a candidate who got six A1s is will have 600 points, a candidate who got six C3s will have 360 points, etc). Hence, the grades of the last-admitted candidate on a course can be represented in terms of these points, and the entry requirement for any given third-level course in any given year can be represented in terms of points.
Scaled up across every applicant for every third-level course, it is clear that the CAO system is a significant undertaking. This year, the first round of offers of places in third level institutions was made yesterday, and the cut-off points levels for their various law degree offerings were as follows:
Athlone IT
AL057 Business and Law 250
AL058 Accounting and Law 310
Carlow IT
CW708 Law 320
CW938 Business with Law 300
University College Cork
CK301 Law 485
CK302 Law and French 490
CK303 Law and German 475
CK304 Law and Irish 515
CK305 Law (Clinical) 505
CK306 Law (International) 540
Dublin Business School
DB514 Business and Law 260
DB568 Law 260
Dublin City University
DC230 Economics Politics and Law 405
DC232 Law and Society (BCL) 445
Griffith College Dublin and Griffith College Cork
GC203 Law (Cork) 310
GC403 Law (Dublin) 300
GC404 Business and Law (Dublin) 265
Trinity College Dublin
TR004 Law 515*
TR017 Law and Business 555*
TR018 Law and French 570
TR019 Law and German 510*
TR020 Law and Political Science 560*
University College Dublin
DN009 Law (BCL) 480*
DN021 Business and Law 485
DN028 BCL Maîtrise 530
DN029 Law with French Law (BCL) 545
DN060 Law with History 510
DN065 Law with Politics 510
DN066 Law with Philosophy 515
DN067 Law with Economics 510
NUI Galway
GY101 Arts 355* (depending on subject choice and progression rules, this can lead to a BA in Legal Science)
GY250 Corporate Law 390
GY251 Civil Law 445
Limerick IT
LC231 Law and Taxation 300
University of Limerick
LM020 Law and Accounting 445
LM029 Law Plus 440
NUI Maynooth
MH101 Arts 375 (Law within Arts: Law can be studied with other Arts subjects in first year, and students fulfilling the necessary criteria can transfer to one of the law degrees)
MH115 Law (BCL) and Arts 450
MH406 Law and Business 450
Waterford Institute of Technology
WD079 Business Management with Law 300
WD140 Legal Studies 305
Other law courses administered through the CAO include:
IT Carlow
CW706 Legal Studies 285
CW926 Business with Law 280
Dublin Business School
DB580 Legal Studies AQA
DB581 Legal and Business Studies 160
DB582 Legal Studies AQA
DB583 Legal and Business Studies 135
Letterkenny IT
LY207 Law 145
Waterford IT
WD013 Legal Studies 270
This list follows the order provided by the CAO. The asterisk * means that not all on this points score were offered places, whilst AQA means all qualified applicants were offered places.
1 Comment »
 May 2010 is the ICCL’s Know Your Rights Month! The ICCL’s Know Your Rights public information project is designed to inform people in clear and accessible language about their rights under various key areas of the law in Ireland. There are two key projects. The first is a series of information packs covering key human rights areas: Criminal Justice and Garda Powers, Privacy and the European Convention on Human Rights. They are written in plain English, and will be updated regularly as the law changes, providing accessible and accurate information. As well as being available for download free of charge, they are also being distributed to libraries and citizens’ information centres nationwide.
The second key project is a series of roadshows to raise awareness of human rights and to help those giving advice on foot of the ICCL information packs. The first of these roadshow events will take place on Wednesday 19 May 2010, from 2:00pm to 4:00pm in the Community and Social Enterprise Centre, 8 North Mall, Cork. Those interested should contact the ICCL’s Joanne Garvey to reserve a place.
I am particularly impressed by the privacy pack, covering the following areas:
This morning’s Today with Pat Kenny radio show on RTÉ Radio 1 featured a slot on protecting privacy which discussed the ICCL Know Your Rights campaign in general and the privacy pack in particular. The issue were explored by Gary Davis, Deputy Data Protection Commissioner and TJ McIntyre of the UCD School of Law and head of Digital Rights Ireland. The item can be streamed or podcast from the webpage for today’s show. It’s well worth a listen, and the ICCL’s packs are well worth consulting. Kudos to them for such an important job so well done.
Update: there is a super post, with more history, over on Human Rights in Ireland.
1 Comment »
 At the Irish Jurisprudence Society (IJS) Symposium, the fifth paper is being delivered by Thomas Patrick Murray (UCD) on The Politics of Property and Principle: Economic Rights in the Drafting of the Irish Free State Constitution. It is a fascinating use of archival material to underpin a theoretical discussion of the deliberations of the committee drafting the IFS constitution concerning the possibilities of constitutional engineering to create economic constraints and guarantees. In particular, he compares various drafts of various committee members on various issues, and locates their perspectives in their life experiences, religious convictions, and political beliefs. His conclusion is that an initial radical draft of socio-economic rights fell foul of external vested interests and the belief-systems of the majority of the committee.
Murray shows that it is clear from the archives and memoirs that, at the outset, the drafting committee paid significant attention to the economic foundations of the emerging Free State. Although economic freedom was to be secured in the first instance through formal democratic mechanisms, the framers also canvassed a number of binding economic provisions for inclusion. In particular, their focus was upon the principle of economic sovereignty, concerning land (especially farm land) and other natural resources (especially for energy generation) and the right to free elementary education.
Murray the demonstrates that the committee’s sphere of action was quite bounded and indeed subject to influence from outside interests. The main interest of the provisional government was in maintaining social and political order and avoiding controversy. Countervailing economic interests featured too, especially the opposition of the farming lobby to any re-distribution of land. Moreover, the Catholic Church was unhappy with the socio-economic rights proposals, especially the provisions relating to education. The committee therefore kept the constitutional text to the bare minimum to ensure its success; controversial provisions were carefully curtailed; and established interests were assuaged. Murray concluded on this point, then, that, faced with the need to establish the legitimacy of the state, any innovation that might threaten established property-holders or any moral principle that might deny a hierarchical role for the Church was deemed ‘controversial’ and accordingly postponed.
But Muarry goes further. He argues that the members were not only constrained by various social boundaries, they were also necessarily constrained by their own boundaries of thought. In other words, various features of the prevailing discourse facilitated the diminution of the committee’s initial economic provisions. Most members of the committee were in thrall to the assertive Catholic-Nationalist ethos of early twentieth-century Dublin, and this prevailing ‘Irish Ireland’ discourse imposed significant limitations on the possibilities of embedding socio-economic rights in the constitution. Although those few members of the committee from outside of this political culture appear to have been more open to the lived experience of poverty and were more amenable to the substantive promotion of economic rights, their views did not prevail against the established discourse. Murray concluded on this point, then, that the pursuit of ‘Irish Ireland’ amounted to something very like an official othodoxy. Conversely, egalitarian discourses, envisioning a society based on principles of rational-legal equality and interdependent citizenship, came to be suppressed. Consequently, the committee’s initial economic rights proposals greatly watered down; prevailing ‘Irish Ireland’ discuorse meant this was not seen as wrong.
1 Comment »
At the Irish Jurisprudence Society (IJS) Symposium on Jurisprudence and Legal Theory at University College Cork, the first paper was delivered by Dr Shane Kilcommins (UCC), who spoke about The Security State and Constitutional Justice: the dangers of ignoring a ‘rights-based conception of the Rule of Law’ that ensures that ‘the majority cannot travel as fast or as far as it would like’. His paper traced the present history of penology from Michel Foucault to David Garland. Garland’s work sees the present as a time of the decline of the rehabilitative ideal, the (re)emergence of punitive sanctions and expressive justice, focus on the perspective of the victim, protection by (rather than from) the state, and the (re)emergence of the prison. In many ways, Irish criminologists can point to a similar development in Ireland: the ‘tooling up’ of the executive power of the state thanks to a hyperactive legislature wanting to be seen to be tough on crime.
Kilcommins’ key point however, is that we must not overstate this development, we must not be misled by the uniqueness of the present. He cites Michel Foucault: “we should have the modesty to say to ourselves that the time we live in is not the unique or fundamental or irruptive point in history where everything is completed and begun again”. Hence, in Kilcommins’ view, Ireland in the early 21st century doesn’t quite fit the Garland narrative; the position is much more nuanced and contradictory, with strong pulls in the opposite direction. For him, the Irish criminal justice is becoming more disaggregated and more contradictory. It is more principled but also more repressive, more instrumental but also more expressive. It continues to emphasise protection from the State, but increasingly also protection by the State. It embodies more authoritarianism but also more pluralism. It involves more monopolised criminal control but also more fragmentation and blurring of boundaries. In particular, for him, whilst legislation is more control-based along Garland lines, the courts are operating as a check on these developments:
The liberal ideology of legalism and constitutionalism has delivered, and continues to deliver, significant protections to those accused of crime that set some limits to the power of the State and the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Though discounted in crime control literature, it has a power and a reach that remains significant and real. Its embedded nature offers more than token resistance to newly emerging, more control orientated, orthodoxies. To dismiss it, or to afford it epiphenomenal status only (as ‘law in books’ or ‘paper rules’), is to neglect its capacity to check power and to offer sustained and dogged opposition to the creation of a ‘culture of control’ society.
Referring to Ronald Dworkin, he argued that the judiciary is by and large constrained by gravitational force of earlier decisions, so that the implementation of crime control legislation runs into a conflicting narrative of rights-based discourse. However, Kilcommins is realistic about the extent of this counter: it is not a complete response, and it is too easy to make complacent assumptions about the unity of law. Nevertheless, he concluded that we should still not close ourselves off from the continued appeal of constitutionalism, legalism, human rights, the internal logic of law, and judicial craft, all of which remain strongly imbricated in the cross-currents of the Irish criminal justice system.
1 Comment »
 Part 5 of the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), which came into effect on 1 January this year, controversially makes blasphemy a criminal offence. In the view of the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, the Constitution’s reference to blasphemy could not be ignored. It now seems that this reference might be removed. If so, the opportunity should be taken to revise the Constitution’s free speech clause in its entirety.
Stephen O’Brien reported in the Sunday Times last week that the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, intends to propose an Autumn referendum to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution (athiest.ie | Attracta | Dispatches | Guardian | Human Rights in Ireland | Human Rights World | Jurist | Bill Tormey | Volokh | William Quill). This was confirmed on Wednesday by Carol Coulter writing in the Irish Times (ABC | Catholic Lawyers | Iona | Sunday Times).
I have long argued that the protection of freedom of expression in the Irish Constitution is very puny indeed and ought to be replaced at the first opportunity. I argue in today’s Irish Times that a referendum to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution would provide just that opportunity:
The promised referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Constitution should go further, and entirely revamp the very limited guarantee of freedom of expression … Deleting one objectionable word, rather than thoroughly revising the whole gruesome clause, would be equivalent to repairing a single broken slate on the roof of a house which needs complete refurbishment. … The freedom of expression guarantee in the Irish Constitution is an example of the wrong way to protect free speech. The forthcoming referendum should replace it with something far better suited to the needs of a modern constitutional democracy.
The full text of a possible alternative is available here. The cases referred to in the piece are:
- Murphy v Independent Radio and Television Commissions [1999] 1 IR 26; [1998] 2 ILRM 360 (Supreme Court held that free speech is fundamental both for personal development and as a foundation of democracy);
- Corway v Independent Newspapers 1999] 4 IR 485; [2000] 1 ILRM 426; [1999] IESC 5 (30 July 1999) (Supreme Court held that the common law crime of blasphemous libel was too uncertain to give content to the constitutional crime);
- Mahon v Post Publications [2007] 3 IR 338; [2007] 2 ILRM 1; [2007] IESC 15 (29 March 2007) (Supreme Court asserted that the right of a free press to communicate information without let or restraint is intrinsic to a free and democratic society); and
- Dillon v DPP [2007] IEHC 480 (4 December 2007) (High Court held that section 3 of the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 infringed constitutional protections of speech).
4 Comments »
 It all began innocently enough: just before Christmas, Sunday Times journalist John Burns wrote a piece lamenting the shortcomings of blogging in Ireland. Leading bloggers naturally begged to differ. A month later, the spat was picked up by Trevor Butterworth writing on Forbes.com, who noted that “it’s hard to think of a free country more suited to blogging than Ireland”. By the same token, it’s at least as hard to think of a country more given to litigation; and the point was illustrated by a story retailed almost en passant in Butterworth’s piece:
As one journalist told me, Ireland’s media is currently abuzz over a “confidential” legal settlement against a blogger, who allegedly had to pay almost $140,000 in damages for a libelous post, seen by few, swiftly purged from the site, and readily apologized for.
This was intriguing. By the end of the week, John Burns in the Sunday Times had the full story:
A blogger has agreed a €100,000 settlement after libelling Niall Ó Donnchú, a senior civil servant, and his girlfriend Laura Barnes. It is the first time in Ireland that defamatory material on a blog has resulted in a pay-out. … In December 1, 2006, a blogger who styles himself as Ardmayle posted a comment about the couple … Following a legal complaint, he took down the blog and in February 2007 he posted an apology which had been supplied by Ó Donnchú’s and Barnes’ lawyer … However, the pair subsequently issued separate proceedings. It is understood that the €100,000 settlement was agreed shortly before the case was due before the High Court.
Indeed, there had been quite a detailed report at the time in the Sunday Independent; and in the last week, many blogs have pored over the story.
There’s nothing new in online defamation; the same basic legal principles apply online as they do offline; the medium may change, but the legal consequences of the message remain the same. Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment »
 Today’s Irish Times carries two interesting interlinked reports. The first is about yesterday’s Press Council seminar in Cork, the second is about TV3’s exposure of Brian Lenihan’s illness, which – unsurprisingly – was one of the issues discussed at the seminar.
First, yesterday’s seminar in Cork:
Freedom would mean less without a free media, entrepreneur Ben Dunne told a seminar organised in Cork yesterday by the Press Council of Ireland. … He condemned the broadcast of the Brian Lenihan story on TV3 on December 26th, saying that it “crossed a line it did not need to cross”. However, he added that TV3 was not the only offender in relation to breaches of privacy.
Another speaker, Data Protection Commissioner Billy Hawkes, told the seminar that the phenomenal development of the internet posed challenges to traditional ideas of privacy and data protection. …
Tightening privacy laws is a recipe for “non-accountability, secrecy and duplicity”, the seminar was told by Paul Drury, managing editor of the Irish Daily Mail, who added that he was wary of any proposal to legislate for heightened privacy.
Paul Drury will be very well aware that TV3’s revelations of Brian Lenihan’s illness could make privacy legislation more likely, even though the Minister himself seems remarkably phlegmatic about it:
Lenihan says he was rushed into telling children about cancer
Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan has told a local newspaper [the Community Voice newspaper in Blanchardstown] he was rushed into telling his children about his cancer diagnosis on St Stephen’s Day because TV3 had decided to run the story. …
Mr Lenihan said while he did not see what public interest was served between St Stephen’s Day and the new year by TV3 broadcasting the story, he did not intend to lose sleep over it.
Update: Three quick comments. First, thanks, Damien, in the comments below, for pointing me towards the Examiner report on the seminar Dunne slates TV3 for lack of fairness. Second, I couldn’t agree more with Noreen’s comment below that ” the notion that there is supposed to be some kind of journalistic obligation to keep politicians’ secrets is deeply unsettling. It’s in the nature of the media to report the news about public officials. If you’re a journalist, it’s called doing your job”. And, third, there is more about Brian Lenihan’s interview with the Community Voice in a story in today’s Irish Independent.
4 Comments »
|
|
Entries (RSS)