The idea of a King’s Justice, enforced by the king and the profits of justice, or the income of the king - that’s absent in Irish law.

And they think in terms of the resolution of conflict, they give you the legal principles for the resolution of conflict, and their courts (apart from the king’s court) do not have compulsory jurisdiction - that is to say, you don’t have to turn up to court. But in the resolution of a problem, both sides to the dispute have to give guarantors and guarantees previous to the judgement, that they will then accept the judgement. They also have to agree as to the judge: it’s getting very subtle you see - you have to agree as to the judge, then give serious guarantees before the judgement that you will abide by the judgement - this is what makes it work. It is not therefore compulsory justice or compulsory jurisdiction of a king’s court.

Now of course, powerful men and violent lords (as everywhere else in Europe) tended to over-ride the niceties of legal procedures - this happens everywhere.

But looking at the Brehon law as a legal system, it is very subtle indeed and one of the faults that were found, of course, by English observers, was that the Irish didn’t use capital punishment for homicide, serious theft, violence and the like, because capital punishment is virtually absent from their concept of legal solutions to social problems.