Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New law will eliminate Double Jeopardy.
Options
-
04-01-2009 9:37pm#1Under the guise of securing convictions against "gangland" criminals the Double Jeopardy rule is going to go out the window, people can now be tried several times for the same crime. This is wide open to all sorts of abuse.Monday December 29 2008
Tom Brady Security Editor
The Director of Public Prosecutions is to be given new powers to seek a fresh trial for a crime suspect if the initial case ends in an acquittal due to witness intimidation or perjury.
The move is seen as a vital new weapon in the armoury of the prosecution, particularly where the trials involve major gangland figures or subversives.
In the recent past, criminal trials have been transferred to other locations because of the fear of tampering with the judicial process, while there have also been grounds for suspicion that witnesses or jurors have been 'got at' by associates of the accused.
During the trial of members of the Provisional IRA for the murder of Det Garda Jerry McCabe, who was shot dead outside a post office in Adare, Co Limerick, in June 1996, the prosecution was forced to accept a plea to manslaughter after it became clear a key witness had been intimidated.
The new powers for the DPP are included in a package of legislative measures that have now been approved by the Cabinet.
Justice Minister Dermot Ahern last night announced that he had been given clearance to press ahead with the package, which, he said, contained far-reaching reforms and groundbreaking proposals. They will be contained in the Criminal Procedures Bill, which will be published early in the New Year.
The DPP will also have the power to appeal against an acquittal and seek a new trial where he believes the acquittal was due to an error in law by the trial judge.
The Bill will include another measure, announced earlier this year by the minister, to eliminate the 'double jeopardy' rule. This means the DPP can apply to have cases retried following an acquittal where compelling new evidence later emerges.
Full:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dpp-gets-new--retrial-powers-if-witnesses-intimidated-1587143.html
Our civil liberty's are getting scrapped, one by one0
Comments
-
Our civil liberty's are getting scrapped, one by one
Doesn't sound like it to me...where compelling new evidence later emerges
It's about time the "civil liberties" of repeat scumbags were eroded - if they don't live by society's rules, then we should be entitled to redefine those rules.
If the above said "on a whim", then fair enough - someone innocent could get "done". But I've no problem whatsoever with what's proposed above.
Honest people should have nothing to fear from either the justice system or from scum. And the above measures are being introduced because of intimidation from scum.
I'd prefer to be at the mercy of a justice system than scum; at least there's a reasonable chance that the justice system would be fair.0 -
Long overdue. There are umpteen examples of scumbags avoiding the clink on dubius grounds. If it weas my call, I would go back and retry some very high-profile cases, and send out a very clear message to one and all that intimidation/pergury/refusal to testify, etc., etc. will not be tolerated.0
-
I never saw the point of the double jeopardy rule.
you could, and I believe sometimes did, have the phenomenon of a person being acquitted, then admitting to the offence, knowing that he or she was now safe from prosecustion.0 -
Sure even the above example contained a SERIOUS anomaly; initially, SF/IRA SWORE BLIND that it WASN'T "official" and wasn't a breach of the ceasefire, but later when they wanted the scum released they started saying that it was covered because it WAS official.
And I've just thought of something; if someone gets intimidated by some scum, does the above mean that they could write their testimony into their will, so that when they died and were no longer at risk, the scum could be tried again and then convicted ?
Of course, if we didn't have a crap revolving-door system with scum committing crimes while out on bail on multiple crimes, then people mightn't be intimidated.
While the above is welcome, I'd prefer to see Fianna Fail actually introduce the zero tolerance proposal that helped them get elected ten years ago.....what the f**k happened that, or was it just another of their cons ?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13664
Also discussed here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055451018
My view, in brief, is that while some of the reforms may be good, the reality is that this is just the government trying to look tough on crime without wanting to spend any more money on gardai, prisons, the DPP's budget, compensating victims etc. It's much easier to say "This new law is tough on crime" than it is to give over several billion to create a system that works well. That's forgetting any attempts to divert kids away from crime and drugs, which is equally important.
Also, most people are of the view that crime has increased significantly in recent years - while FF were in power. It is precicely because they try to paper over the cracks rather than pay for maintenance that we're in this situation, so more law is not what we need, we need more action on crime.
This is the politics forum, so this is perhaps the slant that should be discussed here. The more people go into this "hang 'em & damn 'em" or "bloodly [insert judges/lawyers/cops/prison guards/scumbags]", the more they are allowing FF to get away with not doing anything substantive to combat crime.
Does anyone else agree with me, or am I just pissing in the wind?0 -
Advertisement
-
Does anyone else agree with me, or am I just pissing in the wind?
Possiiby against the wind as well :rolleyes:0 -
-
Kristopherus wrote: »Does anyone else agree with me, or am I just pissing in the wind?
Possiiby against the wind as well :rolleyes:
I'm one of those that believes the job of the Gardaí and legal system should be made as difficult as possible. It is their job to prove guilt, not the accused to prove their innocence.0 -
I'm one of those that believes the job of the Gardaí and legal system should be made as difficult as possible. It is their job to prove guilt, not the accused to prove their innocence.
Yeah spot on. If the police and the courts have carte blanche to drag people into court as many times as they like for the same crime then they will abuse that power. Why does everybody have to give up rights for the sake of a few "gangland" (*copyright Paul Williams) scumbags?. They should set up a proper witness protection program, the one we have is an effen joke.0 -
Did you even read the article? It doesn't give the gardai carte blanche at all. They have to get suitable grounds for a re-arrest. And you can pretty much rest assured that they won't do it lightly. If someone got off a conviction on a technicality, the gardai are going to make sure that they can fully prove guilt and that they cross all the T's and dot all the I's.0
-
Advertisement
-
One other thing re the "erosion of civil liberties" that the OP perceived this as.......the civil liberties are ALREADY being eroded by the scumbags who are affecting the lives of many, many people........
If we, for a second, allow for the opinion that it might be (even though I don't think it is), who would the OP prefer erode our freedom and way of life ? Gardai or scum ?
And as for the poster who reckoned the Gardai's job putting away "people known to Gardai" and scum and repeat offenders should be more difficult......I'm actually speechless for once!0 -
I think I can safely say the OP would prefer neither. For myself, I'd rather take my chances with criminals. The damage they can do is nothing compared to a corrupt judicial system.If we, for a second, allow for the opinion that it might be (even though I don't think it is), who would the OP prefer erode our freedom and way of life ? Gardai or scum ?
I'm sure Benjamin Franklin's famous quote has been oft repeated enough that I don't need to do so here.And as for the poster who reckoned the Gardai's job putting away "people known to Gardai" and scum and repeat offenders should be more difficult......I'm actually speechless for once!
I stand by what I said. Though it was more a blanket statement, not just directed at this move. Anything that makes putting people away easier for the Gardaí should be opposed at every step; their job is made difficult to ensure innocent people aren't wrongly convicted either due to incompetence or corruption.0 -
Would you approve of a proposal to reduce the number of Gardaí to, oh I dunno, let's say five? That would make their job all but impossible, which should fit nicely into your stated philosophy.I'm one of those that believes the job of the Gardaí and legal system should be made as difficult as possible. It is their job to prove guilt, not the accused to prove their innocence.0 -
I think that's a misrepresentation of my position, oB, or perhaps I wasn't being clear. Bringing a conviction should be made difficult, that is what I was referring to.0
-
Welcome to police state facist Ireland,if a trial fails to secure the recommended conviction,due to witnesses being interfered that,thats the state and the gardais problem for not offering adequate proctection,if someone is tried and the state doesnt get the desired outcome,the end result is final,and if its a disapponitment,then they cant cry like a baby and demand new trials till they get a conviction,its a joke and Im sure is in breech of someones rights and against EU law0
-
I disagree vehemently. I think it should be as straightforward as possible to obtain a conviction, with all necessary safeguards in place to make sure that such a conviction is safe.Bringing a conviction should be made difficult, that is what I was referring to.
If you were the victim of a crime, would you be as keen to make the Gardaí's and courts' jobs as difficult as possible?0 -
Dear gods.Welcome to police state facist Ireland...
No, it's society's problem. If the state fail to secure a conviction against a violent criminal as a direct result of that criminal's violence, then society ends up with a violent person at large instead of in custody....if a trial fails to secure the recommended conviction,due to witnesses being interfered that,thats the state and the gardais problem for not offering adequate proctection...
Of course, if you live in the delightfully black-and-white world where it's cops versus villains and the rest of us are spectators, then no harm done. You get to pick a side, and more and more often people are prepared to cheerlead for the forces of lawlessness and violence than for the forces of law and order. If you're one of those: shame on you.
A tenner says you won't be able to quote the EU law in question....if someone is tried and the state doesnt get the desired outcome,the end result is final,and if its a disapponitment,then they cant cry like a baby and demand new trials till they get a conviction,its a joke and Im sure is in breech of someones rights and against EU law0 -
Unfortunately for your case, I'm sure it's not.Im sure is in breech of someones rights and against EU law
Protocol 7, article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights reads:
Note the word "finally". What constitutes "finally" is a matter for the parliament in the particular country.No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.0 -
Yeah spot on. If the police and the courts have carte blanche to drag people into court as many times as they like for the same crime then they will abuse that power. Why does everybody have to give up rights for the sake of a few "gangland" (*copyright Paul Williams) scumbags?. They should set up a proper witness protection program, the one we have is an effen joke.
What rights will we have to give up? The Gardai need more powers not less in my opinion. I think people need to wake up and realise how tame and impotent the Police and courts are in this country compared to many of our EU neighbours, never mind the US.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I disagree vehemently. I think it should be as straightforward as possible to obtain a conviction, with all necessary safeguards in place to make sure that such a conviction is safe.
I can understand your position, really I can, but I don't believe the judicial system is capable of such self-examination to ensure corruption and incompetence doesn't creep in. Yes, I'm aware you can extend that to practically every other human institution but there are some it is more relevant to than others.
Or maybe it is, and I'm being too cynical, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater.If you were the victim of a crime, would you be as keen to make the Gardaí's and courts' jobs as difficult as possible?
Yes, I see what you mean. I'll have a think about what you've said.0 -
Advertisement
-
For myself, I'd rather take my chances with criminals. The damage they can do is nothing compared to a corrupt judicial system.
Yeah - much better chance of getting on with your life if shot or stabbed to death by a scumbag than if you were accidentally convicted and then released. :rolleyes:Anything that makes putting people away easier for the Gardaí should be opposed at every step; their job is made difficult to ensure innocent people aren't wrongly convicted either due to incompetence or corruption.
Who's talking about innocent people ? These are people who were tried (with some evidence that was originally thought to be enough to get a conviction) and they want to re-try because of ADDITIONAL evidence.
IN FACT, if you'd said "anything that makes putting innocent people away", I'd have agreed with you; in fact, I'd support anything that made it impossible to put innocent people away.
But known thugs who intimidate people and get off scot-free or commit additional crimes while on bail ? The more opportunities to put THEM away the better.
All people are created equal, and should have equal rights, but those who infringe on others' rights should have their own rights diluted proportionally.0 -
Welcome to police state facist Ireland,if a trial fails to secure the recommended conviction,due to witnesses being interfered that,thats the state and the gardais problem
It might be the state and Gardai's problem (and we the public ARE the state, so I'm glad that you recognise that the proposal is to help solve a problem of all of ours) but aren't you overlooking whose fault it is - i.e. the criminal being tried ?
Y'see, there's the fall-down in your argument as quoted above. IF it is (and it IS your precise quote) "fails to secure the recommended conviction,due to witnesses being interfered with", then you're saying that THE ONLY REASON for them not to be convicted is the interference - i.e. your statement says that the person is 100% guilty of the crime.
If they weren't, there would be no need to interfere, and the interference wouldn't be the ONLY REASON for a failure to convict. So if there's interference, the person is guilty of the original crime.
And your statement ALSO says that they're guilty of interfering with witnesses - ANOTHER crime by the same person.
And you're happier to have that person walk free than to help society and the Gardai and judges lock them up ?0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »It might be the state and Gardai's problem (and we the public ARE the state, so I'm glad that you recognise that the proposal is to help solve a problem of all of ours) but aren't you overlooking whose fault it is - i.e. the criminal being tried ?
Y'see, there's the fall-down in your argument as quoted above. IF it is (and it IS your precise quote) "fails to secure the recommended conviction,due to witnesses being interfered with", then you're saying that THE ONLY REASON for them not to be convicted is the interference - i.e. your statement says that the person is 100% guilty of the crime.
If they weren't, there would be no need to interfere, and the interference wouldn't be the ONLY REASON for a failure to convict. So if there's interference, the person is guilty of the original crime.
And your statement ALSO says that they're guilty of interfering with witnesses - ANOTHER crime by the same person.
And you're happier to have that person walk free than to help society and the Gardai and judges lock them up ?
We need a fair and just judicial system,and what you mention above doesnt entitle us to that,and as someone else has already stated,I'd prefer to take my chances with crimianals then live in a country with a corrupt and unjust judicial system,the point you seem to be making is that its ok to get a conviction by any means as long as the big bad criminals are being locked up,thats all well and good,everyone wants to see scumbags who are a threat to soceities and communities taken off the streets,but what about the small amount of innocent people that will suffer as result this new 'law',should we not have a court system that is fair and impartial,I'll tell you what,instead of bringing in dubious methods to convict people who the state failed to prosecute,how about new laws and methods brought in to punish those in the upper tiers of society who are responsible for most of the crime that stems working class areas and are the real godfathers of crime,unscruplous greedy property developers,corrupt politicains and civil servants,and instead of having them driven to tribunials in limos to be asked a few questions,lets have them before the criminal courts for fraud,courruption and so on,and have them all go to prison,instead of making Frank Dunlop the scapegoat,who was treated with extreme leniacy despite robbing more then any of the armed robbers out there,we really need get our priorities right in this state,yes there are drug dealers and bank robbers and all sorts of scum out there,but thats to be expected,crime is something that never be completely erradicated,as you said above society is the state,shouldnt we be more worried about people in power that can do damage and get away with then people with none who cant?0 -
In fairness Dunlop has effectively admitted guilt and is the star witness that may yet see people go to prison.instead of making Frank Dunlop the scapegoat,who was treated with extreme leniacy despite robbing more then any of the armed robbers out there
Its a principal of our justice system to show mercy to those who admit guilt and to grant bail to those who are low flight risks.0 -
We need a fair and just judicial system
True.the point you seem to be making is that its ok to get a conviction by any means as long as the big bad criminals are being locked up
Show me where I said "by any means", please. Otherwise stop misrepresenting me.what about the small amount of innocent people that will suffer as result this new 'law'
Under what circumstances exactly would you see the judicial system coming back to court with significant and substantial additional evidence if the person was innocent ?
And as far as I can see, this is aimed at situations where a witness has been intimidated, and - as I said already - I can't see a witness being intimidated by the poor unfortunate innocent person that you describe. Can you ?how about new laws and methods brought in to punish those in the upper tiers of society EVERYONE who are responsible for most of the crime.
Clarification : the bulk of the above quote is Irlbos, but the bolded "EVERYONE" is mine to replace the [crossed-out] highly selective proposal, because that's what I believe the court system should be doing. Why Irlbo is proposing that we leave the scum alone and focus on the white-collar criminals is beyond me. MY suggestion is that we focus on both, ensure they're locked up (or maybe preferably dead), and let law-abiding citizens get on with their lives.shouldnt we be more worried about people in power that can do damage and get away with then people with none who cant?
No. We shouldn't be "more" worried about them. We should be equally worried about them.
Oh, and re the "people with none who cant [get away with it]".....it's the fact that they CAN get away with it that is the very reason for this new law, so I can't for the life of me see where you're coming from with the above. Also, the way it's phrased, you're saying both do damage, but people with power get away with it and people with none don't ? So that argument has nothing to do with innocent people ? If that's the case, why are you so against locking them up ?0 -
Liam Byrne:
Every legal student in the common law world learns 2 things within the first 2 weeks of their education:
a) It is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer;
b) When the individual is accused of a crime, with the full weight and power
of the State standing against them, he should never have to prove his
innocence. Rather the State shall have to prove his guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt.
The underlying principle of b) is that the law exists not to attack the individual accused of a crime but to protect them. One of these protections is that a person cannot have the law used by the State to attack them. Of course this law is prone to abuse. The State can hold back evidence from the court and produce "new and substantial" evidence to drag out a process that takes years as it is. I am not saying this would happen, simply pointing out that the law is certainly apt to being abused.
Furthermore, your argument that "the innocent have nothing to fear from this new law" is incredibly naive. It is that line of thinking that has lead to countless draconian laws being introduced in democratic states including, possibly the most famous example, the House Committee on Un-American Activies which destroyed the lives of everyone from office secretaries to Oscar nominated actresses. Oh and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so by your logic nobody has anything to fear from this law, even those you would label criminals before anything has been proven.0 -
FFS!! There's people posting about preferring to trust known thugs and criminals rather than give the Gardai the benefit of the doubt!
That's just WARPED!Deleted User wrote:The State can hold back evidence from the court and produce "new and substantial" evidence to drag out a process that takes years as it is. I am not saying this would happen, simply pointing out that the law is certainly apt to being abused.
WHAT ????? You're saying that the state wants to convict someone, has evidence that could possibly do it first-time, but holds it back to produce later, thereby weakening their original case and increasing the likelihood of the scum getting off ? Get real!
If it was an X-Files style "trust no-one", then fair enough, and ANYTHING is open to abuse, but if witnesses are being intimidated and convictions falling through BECAUSE OF THAT, then that implies the guy is guilty and something needs to be done.
If a bouncer frisked EVERYONE for guns on the way into some nightclub, I'd be a little worried about the clientele, but at least you know you'd be safe. And if it's EVERYONE, then no-one is being singled out or discriminated against.
The crap I've read above ("go after white collar criminals INSTEAD OF thugs", or "I'd trust and take my chances with criminals before I'd trust the Gardai) is sickening!!
If anyone wants to have a reasoned discussion, fair enough; mind you with pathetic comments like "police facist state Ireland" flying around, I shouldn't be surprised.
Ireland has a problem with serious criminals, and it needs to be sorted NOW!!! Actually, it needed to be sorted ten years ago when FF promised "zero tolerance", but that was just an election ploy that they abandoned as soon as they got in.
So no, I don't trust the Government either; but trusting them less than thugs and murderers is psychotic to say the least.
That's my last post on this because I've said my piece and the thread seems to have been hijacked by wannabe anarchists.0 -
On this issue, some people get caught up with their personal liberty ideals. Look, if more of the gangs are going to get put in prison, what the hell is the problem?0
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »WHAT ????? You're saying that the state wants to convict someone, has evidence that could possibly do it first-time, but holds it back to produce later, thereby weakening their original case and increasing the likelihood of the scum getting off ? Get real!
Nope, never said that. In fact in the statement of mine you quoted I actually state that I am not saying that could happen, rather that theoretically it is open to abuse.
That abuse would not be in cases where the Gardai have sufficient evidence to convict someone but rather where they do not but wish to conduct a vindictive campaign against a person they believe to be guilty but cannot discharge the reasonable doubt burden of proof. Would you like to tell someone in Donegal that it is not possible for the Gardai to do this sort of thing?
Furthermore, at no point did I state that I want to see white collar criminals pursued instead of thugs. If you want to have a reasoned discussion I will but let's stick to what I actually said rather than what you think I said.
Lastly; your analogy with the bouncer frisking people entering a nightclub is not accurate. It is not a minor inconvenience to be falsely accused of a crime. Nor is it a minor inconvenience to go through the criminal justice system. Oh, and there is already double jeopardy in this country. As was noted in the Irish case of Registrar of Companies v AndersonChief Justice Murray wrote:It has for a long time been a principle of the common law that a person cannot be prosecuted and punished for an offence of which he has already been acquitted or convicted. This is commonly referred to as the rule against double jeopardy. It is a rule which applies to the prosecution of criminal offences. The rule, or what also might be called the notion, of double jeopardy is not normally relied upon in express terms in the sense that if a person is prosecuted for an offence arising out of the same breach of the law or the same essential ingredients for which he has previously been tried and either convicted or acquitted, his defence to the second prosecution will be based on the pleas of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. If either plea is successful the prosecution may proceed no further.
Furthermore in a case published this year the court further noted that Double Jeopardy was only a defence to a future conviction, not an automatic right to never be tried on that issue again. Double jeopardy gives rise to the defences of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. In the case of either the prosecution* can rebut these defences.
OK, really the reason I am arguing with you is because you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Take a look at the article at the opening of this thread. Have a good read of it. OK, ready for a real surprise????
That is the current law anyway. That is exactly how the courts approach this area of law as it currently stands since 2005. The legislature just want to give legislative authority to the DPP to do what the courts have already said is the exclusive prerogative of the Director. (See: McLoughlin -v- Tuite[1989] IR 82; Registrar of Companies -v- Anderson[2005]1 IR 21 and DS -v- District Court Judges of Cork and the Director of Public Prosecutions [2009]1 ILRM 16 )
When Dermot Ahern says his "new" measures will be far-reaching he is talking out of his backside. This is a lovely Government trick. Appearing to be active is better than actually being active. The judiciary will continue to exercise it's jurisdiction in this area exactly as it has been doing and this bill won't change that in the slightest. Oh, and if anyone feels up to it they can get the new bill struck down as unconstitutional as it arguably violates Art. 38.1.
*The "prosecution" was noted by the court in DS v Judges of the Cork Circuit Court & ors. to be the DPP. They are the appropriate authority to request re-trials and the courts will determine their validity.0 -
Advertisement
-
On this issue, some people get caught up with their personal liberty ideals. Look, if more of the gangs are going to get put in prison, what the hell is the problem?
If all the gang members, every last one of them, went to prison but in order to make sure that happened you had to accept that about 25 innocent people were going to end up in jail too so you didn't miss any of the gang members would that be acceptable?
People are always glib about civil liberties until they need them.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement