Communities in fear highlights need for garda stations

first_imgNewsLocal NewsCommunities in fear highlights need for garda stationsBy admin – January 29, 2013 651 Email AS GARDAI withdraw from the talks on a proposed extension to the Croke Park deal, and as fear begins to show throughout the country in light of the murder of det garda Adrian Donohue last week, TD’s, local representatives and the public at large are calling on Minister Alan Shatter to put a halt on the closure of 100 garda stations in Irleand, and six in Limerick.  Willie O’Dea, Fianna Fail TD, has slammed the closure of Mary Street Garda station this week calling it “a dreadful decision by the Government. The fact that this is one of the oldest Garda stations in the country and is located in the heart of a regeneration area, parts of which in the past have been unfortunately associated with gangland activity, makes the decision all the more ludicrous.”Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up Previously, councillor John Gilligan, said that the “garda retreat from the inner city is a worrying development”. Niall Collins, FF spokesperson on Justice has again called on Minister Shatter to “put aside his plan to close the garda stations, to cut resources and to further cut the member numbers. On Budget Day last December, as part of the Garda Consolidations programme, it was announced that districts would be merged and stations would close including six in Limerick. Galbally, Kilfinnane, Castletown/Conyers, Kilmeedy, Tournafoulla and the city centre station at Mary Street. Niall Collins said that; “The Minister sneakily announced this slash and burn on Budget day, hoping it seems that people wouldn’t pay too much attention.  He is sorely mistaken.  Removing the garda presence from our communities on such a large-scale at a time when the rate of burglaries has increased makes absolutely no sense.  The presence of a local garda station, however small, acts as a deterrent to criminals who target vulnerable households. “Limerick has fared one of the worst in Minister Shatter’s hit list. We will have 6 less garda stations and many of our communities will have lost their local station. Minister Shatter countered that; “It is, of course, previous Fianna Fail led Governments which are responsible for the financial disaster that has impacted on the State and has so severely effected the lives of everyone who resides in the State”, adding that it was the previous Government that agreed with the Troika the expenditure reductions and reductions in Garda numbers.“If I were Deputy Niall Collins, I would refrain from making hypocritical comment and engaging in self-serving disingenuous political rhetoric based on the assumption that the general public is suffering from amnesia.  It is time that he acknowledged that it is his Party that is responsible for the position in which we find ourselves”.But as the political football continues to be kicked around, Deputy O’Dea reminded that the fear of gang reprisals and an upsurgance is still very real according to his information. “As I have stated previously, it is my understanding that some of the remnants of the gangs in Limerick are getting together in an attempt to re-establish themselves to their former strength and with the closure of Garda stations like Mary Street combined with the reduction in overall Garda numbers, this could bring the gangland problem right back to where it was a few years ago.“Lets not forget, that it was as a result of long hours of painstaking policing by Gardai, including those based at Mary St, that the problem has thankfully abated in recent times, but as we witnessed with the callous murder of Detective Garda Adrian Donohoe in Louth last weekend, gangland crime is a constant threat to society.“Since 2011, Limerick has lost 40 members of An Garda Síochána who have not been replaced and there are no Detective Inspectors at all in the Limerick division and there is a reduction of 18 in the number of Sergeants.”Deputy O’Dea concluded, “The closure of Mary street Garda station is another open invitation from Minister Alan Shatter to potential gangland kingpins to takeover where predecessors left off. The underhand, dishonest way in which these cuts are being foisted upon An Garda Síochána tells us all we need to know about Mr. Shatter and his priorities. At a time when we should be maintaining all Garda stations and Garda strength in Limerick, we are now facilitating criminals to once again potentially gain the upper hand.” Facebook Advertisement Previous articleLimerick models launch new Gathering stampNext articleUL well beaten in Sigerson Cup admincenter_img Twitter Print WhatsApp Linkedinlast_img read more

Learning Advocacy : Things Learnt After 11 Years At Bar

first_imgColumnsLearning Advocacy : Things Learnt After 11 Years At Bar Goutham Shivshankar25 April 2020 6:06 AMShare This – xA good advocate helps judges realize when they make mistakes, but to the best extent possible, doesn’t let the world know that the judge has erred.I’m in my eleventh year of practice as an advocate, still very young by the profession’s standards. A decade and some, being knocked about in courts across the country and even abroad. Fali Nariman calls it the “School of Hard Knocks”. I’ve been knocked hard indeed. If words could cut visibly, I would have many bruises to show. I like to believe I’ve learnt a little at that school,…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginI’m in my eleventh year of practice as an advocate, still very young by the profession’s standards. A decade and some, being knocked about in courts across the country and even abroad. Fali Nariman calls it the “School of Hard Knocks”. I’ve been knocked hard indeed. If words could cut visibly, I would have many bruises to show. I like to believe I’ve learnt a little at that school, though still young.  At law school, I learnt some law. I graduated, enrolled at the Bar, and was then told I had become an “advocate”. This didn’t ring any alarm bells for me at the time. In hindsight, it should have. I didn’t have a clue what “advocacy” was about, and what being an “advocate” meant. At best, I could call myself a fledgling “lawyer”. I knew how to read statutes and judgements, discern the principle that turned cases, and string together a logical argument of what would be the result if “the law” applied to “the facts”. I thought I was rather clever. I believed, naively, that that was all there was to it. I hadn’t considered the possibility that someone would disagree with me on what “the law” and “the facts” were, at least not in a way that mattered to me. I was in for some rude shocks. It turned out nobody cared one bit for what I had to say on anything. Not my chamber-colleagues, not my seniors, and certainly not those judges. I learnt slowly, very slowly, that it wasn’t enough for me have an argument. I had to have a convincing argument. But it turned out even that was not enough. I discovered that I would still lose my battles, even against other lawyers whose arguments were clearly unconvincing. Repeatedly. Ingloriously. Painfully. And slowly, I learnt that it wasn’t enough to have a convincing argument. I also needed, myself personally, to be a convincing person. I had to get people to first listen to me. Then, I had to get them to take me seriously. If possible, I needed to get them to like me. Then, only then, would my convincing argument stand a shot being a winning argument. It took many years for me to learn that this process of converting a “logical argument” to a “winning one” was called “advocacy”. That’s why we are called “advocates”. It turns out that there’s only one really sure-shot way of becoming a good “advocate”. That way is called “practice” and that’s why we “advocates” have a “practice”. To be fair to myself, I studied at the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. My law school’s motto, inscribed in tiny words in its logo, reads in Sanskrit as follows: “युक्तिहीने विचारे तु धर्महानि: प्रजायते”, which is often crudely translated to mean “Judgment devoid of logic destroys Dharma”. This, whilst true, is only partly true, since it emphasizes, primarily, “logic”. For another part of the truth, we must look to Oliver Wendell Holmes, that famous American judge, who said “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” Logic has its rightful and important place in advocacy. But experience teaches us that several other things matter. The ancient Greeks knew this too. Aristotle, in his Rhetoric, spoke of “ethos, pathos and logos” as modes of persuasion used to convince an audience. Logos is logic. Ethos refers to the distinguishing moral character of the person making the arguments. This is why we say Senior Counsel have “standing” – what we mean is that they have ethos, a special, distinguished moral character which the Bar and the Bench hold in high regard. Pathos refers to the emotional content of one’s speech. It is what pulls at a judge’s heartstrings. It is the sort of stuff that led judges to entertain PILs by litigants like Charles Sobhraj, a convicted serial killer, and pass judgements to effectuate prison reforms in Tihar jail. A good advocate must have ethos, pathos and logos. Closer home, and in our own times, Mr. Janak Dwarakdas, the highly respected Senior Advocate from Bombay, in a speech he gave in 2018 on “The Art of Advocacy”, highlights this difference between being a “lawyer” and an “advocate”. This is a wonderful speech that is available on Youtube here. I would urge everyone to watch it. So, without much further ado, what are these small things that I have learnt? I list out only a few. At the end of this article, I point you to some good resources on the art of advocacy, both written and oral. Many books have been written on the subject, and I wish someone had told me about them in law school. The points I state below may seem extraordinarily simple, but I have learnt them the hard way. I don’t know if there is an easier way to learn these things, but if there is, I hope you figure it out. The little I can do to help you along the way, is to tell you what I have understood myself. So here goes. Let’s begin with your client. He’s a very important guy, but not the most important guy. He pays your bills and gives you his case. He wants you to win, and you owe it to him to try your best to win. But this does not mean that you win at all costs. This is important. I will explain what I mean below. Next, your opposition. Assume you are arguing against the best. Be that well prepared. It will save you a lot of pain and embarrassment in court. But more importantly, always be courteous to your opponent. Even when he doesn’t deserve it. Especially when he doesn’t deserve it. This does not mean you should be a push-over. Stand your ground, but politely. Now, let’s come to the most important people. These are the court staff and the judges. Do not underestimate the importance of the court staff. They are the kindly people who tell you what happened in your case if you missed it. They are kind, however, only if you are nice to them. Smile at them. Even if they think you’re a bit off your head. That leaves the judges. But before we get to the judges, I’ll remind you of something very important. You are an advocate. An advocate is bound by rules. More importantly, you are bound by honour. You must act honourably at all times. Even when no one is watching. Especially when no one is watching. You must not lie. To your client. To the court. To anyone. Never, ever lie when at work as an advocate. Don’t be a shyster. Just don’t do it. Instead, work hard, research well, write a good brief, and be fully prepared for your hearing. These are the basics. I will assume that you have learnt to do most of this well at law school and the “not lying” bit from your mother. This is the least you owe your client, no matter how much or how little he pays you. I do not discuss written advocacy here. Now, to the judges, and more generally, the Court. This is what I have learnt about judges and courts. Firstly, one learns that courts both have power of their own and limit the power of others. To advocate well to a court, you must acknowledge that it has power over your client. Your job as an advocate, then, is to convince the court to exercise its power a certain way. You must convince the court that your way is the best amongst the various options before it. Notice that I said the word “power” thrice and even underlined it. This is because understanding how “power” works is fundamental to your job as an advocate. Introspect on this. We must learn to “speak truth to power”. But this leads us to a second problem. Judges have their own instincts about what the law is and what the truth is. They are confident, experienced, and very clever men and women. They are judges for precisely those reasons, and their truth and instincts are very real to them. An advocate who hopes to convince the court of a different truth, must do so tactfully. Good advocates convince the court with the least friction. Thirdly, we like to believe that judges are entirely rational and logical. But often, they appear to arrive at decisions first and rationalize them later. Good advocacy then, helps to sway a judge first emotionally, and then lays down the easiest logical route to support that emotion. Note that I said “easiest” logical route. Good advocates don’t make convoluted arguments unless left with absolutely no choice. No one cares if you’re very smart. You’re not important. Yes, you heard that right. You, advocate, are not important. Your case is important, your client is important, land the court is most important. Fourthly, you know starting out that some of your cases are hopeless ones. Your job in these cases is then, not to secure an impossible win using dishonourable means. It is to make traction. To move the judge a little now, so that he may perhaps be moved further another day. Fifthly, and lastly, judges are human. They like praise when they do things right. They dislike being told they are getting things wrong. A good advocate helps judges realize when they make mistakes, but to the best extent possible, doesn’t let the world know that the judge has erred. The worst thing, the absolute worst thing you can do as an advocate, is to appear cleverer than the judge. This is especially true if you are indeed cleverer than the judge (which, by the way, you never are). That’s it. It’s that simple. Now, I recommend just two books to read on Advocacy to begin with. They are: 1. Devil’s Advocate – A spry polemic on how to be seriously good in Court by Iain Morley QC (for oral advocacy) 2. Bryan A. Garner – The Winning Brief (for written advocacy) I hope you have an enjoyable time learning how to do advocacy. Actually, I rather hope you will have a terribly, horribly painful time. Because, then, I know you would have learnt it well. And remember this always. In most Indian courts, “good advocates” get the Court to “Notice”. But “great advocates” get the Court to “Notice and Stay”.(Goutham Shivshankar is an Advocate at the Supreme Court. He tweets @gousgame) Next Storylast_img read more

Bar Council Of Delhi Covid Relief Measures Impact About 2500 Lawyers; Distributes Rs. 3.5 Crores Worth Of Support

first_imgNews UpdatesBar Council Of Delhi Covid Relief Measures Impact About 2500 Lawyers; Distributes Rs. 3.5 Crores Worth Of Support LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK20 May 2021 4:36 AMShare This – xAs part of its Covid-relief measures, the Bar Council of Delhi has established a war room which has so far helped close to 2500 of its member Advocates/ their immediate relatives, in smooth hospitalization during the second wave. The Council is also providing financiall assistance to its members thorugh the through Covid Fund, to support quality treatment. The details of various help are as follows:Advertisement Lawyer under Home Quarantine – 15,000/- INR (To date, 2287 lawyers are already benefited)Lawyer under Hospitalization, who are not covered under insurance – 50,000/- INR (To date, 33 lawyers are already benefited)The facility of 110 oxygen cylinder in circulation (Home delivery and Refilling Facility)Distribution of free grocery kits to needy and Home Quarantine lawyers and their immediate family. (To date, 2000 grocery kits are already distributed worth 40,00,000/- INR)Advertisement To date, 2320 enrolled lawyers and their immediate family has already been benefited, and an amount of 3, 59, 55,000/- INR has already been spent towards the cause. Mr Manoj K Singh, Chairman, Executive Committee & Spokesperson, Bar Council of Delhi, said, “As we know how severe the 2nd wave of the pandemic has been for all and same goes for our legal fraternity as well. Many of our members are unable to get the medical help they need because of financial problems, and hence in these challenging times, if we don’t come forward, who else will. That is why we have been standing by with our brothers and sisters who need our support during this crisis. We are happy and humbled to have touched upon so many lives, and we will not stop until this pandemic is over”. The Bar Council will also launch a crowdfunding initiative where every fraternity member can come forward and contribute towards this cause so that this Covid relief drive keeps going on till the situation is normalized again. It is to be noted that a drive like this is one of the largest when serving the professionals of a particular community.TagsBar Council of Delhi (BCD) Covid Relief Fund Financial Assistance To Advocates Plight Of Lawyers During Covid-19 Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

DivcoWest buying 325 Hudson for $150M+

first_img Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Message* Share via Shortlink DivcoWest CEO Stuart Shiff and Jamestown Properties’ Michael Phillips with 325 Hudson Street (Google Maps)DivcoWest struck a deal to buy a Hudson Square building in what could be one of the first big office trades of the new year.The San Francisco-based real estate investment firm has an exclusive agreement to buy Jamestown Properties’ 325 Hudson Street, sources told The Real Deal. Pricing for the 10-story, 225,000-square-foot building is north of $150 million, according to one source.Representatives for DivcoWest and Jamestown did not respond to requests for comment. CBRE, which sold the building to Jamestown nine years ago, negotiated the deal.Read moreHere are NYC’s 10 biggest investment sales of 2020Sony-owned production company expands at 325 HudsonManhattan office availability hits record high Email Address* Depending on the timing, 325 Hudson could end up being one of the first big investment sales of the year, after a spurt of big-ticket deals closed right before the end of 2020.Jamestown bought the property in 2012 for $110 million in partnership with Philadelphia-based developer Amerimar Enterprises and the telecoms entrepreneur Hunter Newby. The former industrial building sits on top of the Transatlantic cables and high-speed fiber corridors that run through Lower Manhattan, making it popular with telecommunications and tech tenants.In the 1990s, it was reportedly one of the first office buildings to be marketed as a dedicated telecoms center for commercial tenants.DivcoWest, meanwhile, closed its sixth value-add real estate private equity fund in October with $2.25 billion in capital commitments. The company, headed by founder and CEO Stuart Shiff, paid $310 million in 2019 to buy the 39-story 540 Madison Avenue office building from Boston Properties.Contact Rich Bockmann Full Name* Tags hudson squareInvestment Salesjamestown propertiesManhattan Office Marketlast_img read more