Whats wrong with Irish law when this happens

El_MUERkO

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1118/fitzpatrick.html

Two Dublin men have been found not guilty of murder at the Central Criminal Court on the direction of the trial judge.

Michael Geoghegan of Northway Estate in Finglas, and Richard Bourke of Sycamore Park in Finglas East, were accused of the murder of Brian Fitzpatrick in December 1998.

The public servant was punched and kicked to death near his home at Clune Road in Finglas, after it was alleged he refused to give cigarettes to the defendants. They had denied the charge.

The not guilty direction followed over two weeks of legal argument in which incriminating statements alleged to have been made by the two men were challenged.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie ruled that certain alleged statements and memoranda of interviews with the two men while detained at Blanchardstown and Finglas garda stations, should be excluded from evidence.

Mr Goeghegan and Mr Bourke were both 15 at the time of the alleged offence. After today's hearing, Mr Bourke said his five-year ordeal was finally over and his innocence proven.

They did it, they're guilty as sin, everyone knows it, they're the scum of the earth.

They live round the corner from me the sacks of ****.

seamus

Originally posted by El_MUERkO
The not guilty direction followed over two weeks of legal argument in which incriminating statements alleged to have been made by the two men were challenged.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie ruled that certain alleged statements and memoranda of interviews with the two men while detained at Blanchardstown and Finglas garda stations, should be excluded from evidence.

I mean, what. The. Fuck?

Have all the scumbags recently been granted a legal right to say "Well, uh, yeah, I said that, but eh, I didn't mean it loike."

ixoy

Ah but go to After Hours and you'll see the poor fellas are misunderstood and really actually nice guys :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Originally posted by El_MUERkO
Whats wrong with Irish law when this happens?

Nothing is wrong with Irish law, it worked exactly as it is supposed to.

The police f**ked up and the judge called them on it.

It is not a perfect system, but if you can think of a better one...

stuartfanning

Most of Irish Law is based on English Law which was inherited after independence. Unlike the Law in countries like France, Truth and Justice are not the most important parts.

LFCFan

sure even if they were convited they would have been out in 4 years and in the meantime have a luxery cell with a dailt menu and all the mod cons. There is no deterrant in Ireland to violent crime because the punishment is rediculously lame. I blame all the beeding heart liberalists and Human Rights activists. Also, Irish Judges are a joke. They can send a man to jail for throwing a cigerette butt out his car window but on the same day just fine a man for rape. There's no consistency or common sense used in Irish courts.

uaobrien

Originally posted by stuartfanning
Most of Irish Law is based on English Law which was inherited after independence. Unlike the Law in countries like France, Truth and Justice are not the most important parts.

Of course, as I understand it, and I could be wrong, the French legal system is the reverse of ours with regards to a trial's objective. Under French law, the accused is presumed guilty and must prove their innocence, as opposed to innocent until proven guilty.

So those two wouldn't have had a chance in France.

seamus

Originally posted by uaobrien
Of course, as I understand it, and I could be wrong, the French legal system is the reverse of ours with regards to a trial's objective. Under French law, the accused is presumed guilty and must prove their innocence, as opposed to innocent until proven guilty.

So those two wouldn't have had a chance in France.

A small price to pay for a common sense right, imo.

Zombrex

Originally posted by seamus
A small price to pay for a common sense right, imo.

Well it depends on which the society holds more important -

1. We try and make sure no innocent person goes to jail, even at the expence that some guilt people might go free.

2. We try and make sure that all guilty people go to jail, even if it means some innocent people while be wrongly convicted

I take the former, but everyone is entitled their own view

seamus

Sorry yeah, that came out wrong. Definitely innocent until proven guilty.

stuartfanning

Originally posted by uaobrien
Of course, as I understand it, and I could be wrong, the French legal system is the reverse of ours with regards to a trial's objective. Under French law, the accused is presumed guilty and must prove their innocence, as opposed to innocent until proven guilty.

So those two wouldn't have had a chance in France.

No in France you have an Investigating Magistrate whose job is to find out the truth. The system is not adversarial like the English system.

Sangre

Well fair play to the judge for not buckling to media pressure, the only reason this was picked up was because it was a murder, not some petty theft, due process was served, although at the expense of the guilty parties getting away.

I dont know if they're guilty, but if they are I really hope they get their dues and soon!

John R

Originally posted by Sangre
Well fair play to the judge for not buckling to media pressure, the only reason this was picked up was because it was a murder, not some petty theft, due process was served, although at the expense of the guilty parties getting away.

I dont know if they're guilty, but if they are I really hope they get their dues and soon!

How exactly do you expect that to happen? Unless someone decides to exact revenge and slit their scumbag throats they have gotten away with it.

Frankly if anyone I cared about was murdered by the likes of them I would feel perfectly justified in taking the law into my own hands. The law in this country is a joke and I wouldn't trust it to exact justice on anything.

Zombrex

Originally posted by John R
How exactly do you expect that to happen? Unless someone decides to exact revenge and slit their scumbag throats they have gotten away with it.

Frankly if anyone I cared about was murdered by the likes of them I would feel perfectly justified in taking the law into my own hands. The law in this country is a joke and I wouldn't trust it to exact justice on anything.

I am not sure why everyone is blaming the "law" in this case ... the "law" did exactly what it was supposed to. I havn't been following the case that closely but it was the gardi that messed up. The law in this country, with respect to innocent till proven guilty, is just fine.

John R

Originally posted by Wicknight
I am not sure why everyone is blaming the "law" in this case ... the "law" did exactly what it was supposed to. I havn't been following the case that closely but it was the gardi that messed up. The law in this country, with respect to innocent till proven guilty, is just fine.

The law puts far more emphasis on procedure then truth meaning that the lawyers and barristers put all their efforts into proving minor errors in the gardai's actions rather than proving the innocence of the accused. The reason for this being that they were very much guilty.

ColinM

Don't want to cross post as I only saw this thread after I posted about this in the Skangers thread.
Have a look at the photos I posted on the Skangers thread. There's no way these guys aren't guilty. If I was on that jury I would have returned a guilty verdict without needing to hear any evidence. Screw due process. Take a look at the photos and tell me they're not guilty. It would have pissed me off no end to be directed by the judge to find them not guilty.
Click

Zombrex

Originally posted by ColinM

Have a look at the photos I posted on the Skangers thread. There's no way these guys aren't guilty.

PLEASE tell me that is not the only thing everyone is basing that they are guilty on. I havn't been following the case at all but I assumed that a key witness wasn't allowed speak, or that a bit of evidence was inabmissable, not "would you look at them, they are skangers!"

John R

Originally posted by Wicknight
PLEASE tell me that is not the only thing everyone is basing that they are guilty on. I havn't been following the case at all but I assumed that a key witness wasn't allowed speak, or that a bit of evidence was inabmissable, not "would you look at them, they are skangers!"

I am not, I have a personal connection to the case and I am well aware of the exact details of this crime and who committed it.
BTW they weren't the only ones, three of their mates were also involved but never charged.

Despite that I can't help but sympathise with ColinM's sentiment. If I was on a jury I would have no problem with convicting that kind of scum despite lack of presented evidence as long as I was convinced about guilt.
Anyone who witnessed their attitude in court would have no illusions about their guilt, the jury was instructed by the judge to return a not-guilty verdict.

Syth

Like Wicknight said the crux of the argument comes down to which you find more 'wrong':
An innocent man going to jail, or
A guilty man going free.

I find the first one more 'wrong', ie the system as it is now. Why? Well it's like the law is giving me the assurance that if i don't break the law then i most likely won't go to jail.

Have a look at the photos I posted on the Skangers thread. There's no way these guys aren't guilty.

I can't decide if he's taking te pi$$ or being in someway serious...

Zombrex

Originally posted by John R
If I was on a jury I would have no problem with convicting that kind of scum despite lack of presented evidence as long as I was convinced about guilt.

But how can someone be convinced of the guilt of a man if they are not show the evidence ... they're just going on the accused apparence ... just because they are obvious skangers doesn't mean they actually did something.

I am not saying that these particular people didn't do it, a lot of people seem to know they did. I am just pointing out what is suggested would end up being an incrediably unjust legal system.

vasch_ro

they were not found not guilty as such by the jury the judge sided on the side of the suspected offenders , the two lads made all sorts of allegations in the box at the court which led to the trial within a trial, when they were arrested and interviewed, it was done in the presence of their mother and grandfather respectively
no what ever else you may say about Irish Police men etc ther is no way they are going to threaten these people while they're guardians are present
they admitted their guilt in front of their mother and granddad but the judge would accept the admissions on a technicality

had it been his son who was the victim things may have been a little different
the word on the street is that they are guilty as hell

LFCFan

this gonna lead to more scumbags accusing the Gardai of abuse etc when it comes to trial unless something is done about it now. Was there any evidence that these people were abused or was it the Gardai's word against the defendants and their relatives? If the judge just took their word for it then the judge should be sacked.

oscarBravo

Video recording of suspect interviews is being worked on at the moment, afaik.

LFCFan

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Video recording of suspect interviews is being worked on at the moment, afaik.

You mean we might actually catch up with the rest of the world as it was at the end of the 20th century? I thought recordings were already being made? At least voice recordings? Were there no voice recordings of the interviews that would have shown there was no abuse and that the accused actually said what they said?