Gangs and the Special Criminal Court

gurramok

So anonymous juries is the jury fix.

What about witnesses, how should they be protected?

They are usually the ones who have to live back into the community where the jailed gangster came from.

Maybe expand the witness protection program massively?

But then again, that costs lots of money!

Lockstep

gurramok wrote: »

So anonymous juries is the jury fix.

What about witnesses, how should they be protected?

They are usually the ones who have to live back into the community where the jailed gangster came from.

Maybe expand the witness protection program massively?

But then again, that costs lots of money!

Once again;
the SPC does not protect the witnesses. The rationality behind it was for where terrorist groups would intimidate the jury.

THe WPP isn;t much use anyway as it involves complete severance from your previous life. Not too many people take the state up on it.

gurramok

So, this new legislation regarding the SCC is usless as it will be still impossible to get witnesses to testify.

The only plus as i can see is this new surveillance legislation to catch the crims in the act so there would be no need for witnesses from the general public in the first place.

Lockstep

Criminal law isn't an area I have experience in but IIRC, one of the primary functions of the original SCC was to prevent jury tampering.
I don;t see how they will affect witnesses.

alegrabaroque

I would be extremely sceptical of anything the government dangles on front of us to distract us. They and the judges have manufactured this problem in the first place. The sentence has not match the crime for a long time now. I reckon, just my own theory mind, that if these threats are the ones we've heard off I'd bet there's a lot more we've never heard anything about. We're only seeing a tiny portion of the puzzle maybe the people at the top tier of our society are pulling the strings in the first place who knows.

johnnyskeleton

Darragh29 wrote: »

I've just heard Dermot Ahern on RTE saying that a new offence is being introduced that will prohibit membership of a criminal gang. I would have thought, given our current difficulties in dealing with this problem, that this would have been an offence long ago, but anyhow...

But what he said got me thinking... He said that suspects charged with this new offence and other gangland related offences, will be tried before the Special Criminal Court, which is non-jury... Basically you have a jury made up of three judges and they hear your case and issue a verdict and sentence you or release you whichever the case may be.

1. Juror intimidation in gangland cases has never been a big issue in Ireland. To be honest, it should be at the discretion of the DPP such as it currently is for certain firearms offences, whereby he can certify a case as not fit for jury trial.

2. I have no problem with an offence of membership of a criminal gang per se, but what I do have a problem with is the manner in which this is proved. In Offences Against the State trials for membership of an unlawful organisation, there is often no more proof than the chief super's word that he believes someone is a member of an unlawful organisation based on confidential information. What do you do if you are falsely accused of such. What if you are not part of the gang, take no part in its dealings but are connected to some of the members by family/friendship ties? If your cousin is so-and-so gang member, anyone with a grudge against you could tell the gardai that you are involved in that gang and you're toast. All you can do is take the oath and say "I swear I'm not in that gang" and hope the judge believes you.

Darragh29 wrote: »

Now, I'm just wondering has anyone actually stopped to think that these gangs have become so out of control, that it is not outside the bounds of possibility that they could start murdering judges who could be trying them, or members of the government who introduce new legislation to try them???

They haven't done so to date; it's possible, but many things are possible. Judges can get garda escorts. Cross each bridge as we come to it.

johnnyskeleton

Darragh29 wrote: »

I haev absolutely no faith in the justice system and rightly so. Anyone that does I'd suggest is gullible in the extreme. If the justice system worked, you wouldn't see innocent people being blown to bits by these criminals. You wouldn't be seeing a 10% conviction rate for gangland murders and you wouldn't be seeing the capital city of the country completely overrun by heroin junkes and I can tell you after being in there yesterday that this is most certainly the case now. You can't walk ten steps down O' Connell Street or any street off O' Connell Street or along the quays now without junkie wasters falling on top of you. Don't come on here and tell me to have faith in the justice system, you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Expecting people not to be killed or for people to stop using drugs is utopian, as unfortunatly the only way to absolutely stop humans committing crimes is either to kill or humans or else to repeal all criminal laws. In practical terms, the best we can hope for is that most crimes are detected and prosecuted, most of those that are guilty are found to be guilty when prosecuted, and those that pose the greatest danger of reoffending are sentenced to a term of imprisonment sufficient to deter them from offending again. I think it's misleading to say that the conviction rate for gangland murder is 10%; most murder prosecutions result in a conviction, so it seems to be the case more that very few of the gangland murders actually get prosecuted.

The gardai are going to have to move away from the traditional policing mentallity of getting witnesses to rat out their co-conspirators. The new surveylance powers are welcome in that regard, but more traditional methods e.g. murder weapons, fingerprints, dna samples, cctv should take on greater importance. If the gardai know who these gangland figures are, then they should have no problem finding some real evidence of this kind. IMO, most juries would convict someone found with the murder weapon spotted on cctv near to the scene.

Sand

If criminals can be convicted of gang membership based on Garda intelligence (Provos were convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation based on Garda surveillance - no witnesses required) then witnesses are not required. The Gardai simply provide the judge with their evidence ( which defence does not see, as it would compromise the Gardais surveillance or informers) and the judge decides if he is convinced.

If witnesses can be allowed to give evidence without revealing their own identity then they can be protected - if the accused doesnt know who the witness is, he cant have them attacked. If the defence lawyer doesnt know, he cant inform his clients "colleagues". Obviously, there is still cause for a witness protection programme but I doubt it will be popular to act as a witness and then have to leave your home and avoid associating with your friends and family for years, or even decades.

Criminal gangs are directly attacking the states justice system by attacking witnesses, discouraging people from providing evidence. The state needs to ensure that witnesses are protected or else it might as well give up and surrender to these scumbags. If some gang members civil rights are infringed, so be it. It might seem harsh, but gang members have made their choices, and they should always be considered less important than the public at large.

If the gardai know who these gangland figures are, then they should have no problem finding some real evidence of this kind. IMO, most juries would convict someone found with the murder weapon spotted on cctv near to the scene.

"Gangland figures" will never actually pull the trigger themselves. Like our friends to the north. They have *very* expendable footsoldiers for that. Essentially, dogs on the street can know who these guys are, but if the burden of evidence is to catch them on camera, carrying the murder weapon, with their DNA at the crime scene....then they are as innocent as you or I. Who knows, they might even wind up running the county on a crime fighting ticket.

dresden8

I don't know about you lot but I was shocked to hear that the Gardai couldn't bug criminals and use that sort of stuff as evidence. From the horse's mouth as such.

WTF? Anybody who watched a mafia movie from the 1970's on knew the Feds were bugging everybody.

How the fnck is this new? Is this the last indignaty CJH left to the state in his aftermath?

If accountants solicitors and barristers are corrupt bug their asses too. How difficult is this?

johnnyskeleton

realismpol wrote: »

Judges out of touch with reality, pathetic sentencing

Most Judges have a much better grasp of reality than most as they deal with offenders on a daily basis. Sentences for serious offences can be quite steep but don't attract media attention. It's just that occasionally the media will latch onto a lenient sentence or two and hold it up as systemic. It's no good simply asking judges to increase sentences when we have no prisons to hold them in - that leads to a system like the us where a sentence of 20 years is remitted to 3 or 4 (judges get elected in some states so like to "throw them to the lions" and then the prisons have no choice but to release them due to lack of funding).

realismpol wrote:

Criminals don't generally care for the law and they certainly don't care for our weak justice system which is a joke even by liberal countries standards i.e the u.k, netherlands etc.

Yet the UK & netherlands don't have to resort to extreme measures. Why do you think that is? It's not because they have well funded police, courts and prison facilities, is it?

realismpol wrote:

You may not like it but a tough response to crime is the only way to control it and its proven.

Actually it's not - there are statistics to support both sides of that debate but generally speaking tougher sentences (including the death penalty) do not deter crimes as offenders often don't believe they will be caught and in any event do not consider the potential punishment.

realismpol wrote:

We need tough armed action and new laws brought in such as in the states 3 strikes and your out for minor crimes,

3 careless driving convictions and its jail for life?

realismpol wrote:

in the case of proven murder it should be life automatically no deals on anything.

It's already automatic life for murder, and the only deals done are in cases of clear manslaughter/insanity.

realismpol wrote:

Its tough but its the only way to teach these people who's boss much like you treat an unruly child or dog.

These people? You might want to rephrase that as it sounds like social darwinism.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Special criminal courts are pretty divisive for people.

On the one hand, it does appear to address the problem that intimidation of witnesses. On the other, it is fairly strange to have a special criminal court used on civilians.

Special Criminal Courts and the power under the OAS acts for Garda Chief Superintendents to give uncorroborated belief evidence are two separate things. Trial without jury should only take place where there is a risk of juror intimidation.

Also, many of our fellow EU member-states don't have juries at all, and see nothing wrong with it.

gurramok wrote: »

Then how do you propose to safeguard juries and witnesses from gunmen who live in their communities?

Do you have any links which suggest that jury intimidation from gangland figures is a big problem in Ireland? Don't forget there have been a number of convictions by jury in gang related cases.

gurramok wrote: »

Maybe bring back the witness protection programme en masse?

I'd agree with that, but it's a question of funding.

gurramok wrote: »

They could start by not giving the defence the jurys details.

Again, is there any evidence that jury intimidation (as opposed to witness intimidation) is prevalent?

gurramok wrote: »

Maybe expand the witness protection program massively?

But then again, that costs lots of money!

Now you're getting it, but it's just a tip of the iceberg. The DPP, Prison service and gardai are all underfunded, and bar a small (and largely ignored) plea by the DPP for extra funding, no one is saying that there is anything wrong. The government thinks that by bringing in all sorts of exotic legislation that they can get rid of crime, but it doesn't work. It's coming to a point where gardai don't even use their new powers (I'm sure you're average garda isn't even aware of them). There are so few circuit court judges in Dublin(i.e. the ones who deal with the majority of serious offences bar rape, murder, OAS etc), that it takes about a year wait for a trial date to come up. Where the hell is that new prison that was promised all those years ago (and for which we bought an overpriced site)? The €50m or so it costs to run the DPP & CPS service is a drop in the ocean compared to some of the government's excesses (I'm sure there are useless quangoes costing just as much) yet the DPP's budget is slashed instead of increased due to the increase in crime. Most of all though, why can't we have the same standard of recruitment and training that the UK, US etc have for their police? That is not a criticism of individual gardai, but rather a comment on how the Garda organisation, despite some notable improvements, has not adapted to new technology and circumstances in the way that other police forces have.

johnnyskeleton

Sand wrote: »

Criminal gangs are directly attacking the states justice system by attacking witnesses, discouraging people from providing evidence. The state needs to ensure that witnesses are protected or else it might as well give up and surrender to these scumbags. If some gang members civil rights are infringed, so be it. It might seem harsh, but gang members have made their choices, and they should always be considered less important than the public at large.

You seem to think that there is some way of proving someone is a gang member other than by a criminal trial. Everyone is innocent and a member of the public of large until they have been convicted in a fair trial. It is only then that you know that they are a gang member, before that it is just speculation.

Sand wrote: »

"Gangland figures" will never actually pull the trigger themselves. Like our friends to the north. They have *very* expendable footsoldiers for that. Essentially, dogs on the street can know who these guys are, but if the burden of evidence is to catch them on camera, carrying the murder weapon, with their DNA at the crime scene....then they are as innocent as you or I. Who knows, they might even wind up running the county on a crime fighting ticket.

Which is why you catch the gunmen and charge their bosses with conspiracy and related offences, using the information gathered through surveillance. The dogs in the street think they know who these guys are, but then again the dogs in the street knew that the best way to make money was to invest in property, so I won't put much faith in public knowledge and rumour if its all the same with you.

Bob Z

this is a good idea in theory but how do you prove that someone is a member of a criminal gang. And how does someone who is accused of being in a criminal gang offer a defence?

ilkhanid

"It's already automatic life for murder,...."

No, its not. There is a sentence for murder which is given the title of "life sentence" but it bears no relationship to what most people consider the phrase to mean. Most people sentenced to life don't serve 20 years,most don't even serve 15 years.

marcsignal

internment, end of :cool:

Bottle_of_Smoke

Chief--- wrote: »

Tell that to Mrs Jerry Mc Cabe and the family of Recruit Garda gary Sheehan.

Criminals have no morals. They would shoot their own mother to escape.

They weren't planned murders. THe operatives broke the rules. I was responding to the other posters question, and guess what, no judges have been killed by provos.

OhNoYouDidn't

Bob Z wrote: »

this is a good idea in theory but how do you prove that someone is a member of a criminal gang. And how does someone who is accused of being in a criminal gang offer a defence?

Welcome to the argument Republicans made about the SCC 30 years ago. How do you prove the absence of something in your defence?

The problem I have is that the special criminal court has a conviction rate of over 100% (thats actually true). We know innocent people have been given long sentences due to the incorrect sayso of Gardai.

I want the state to come down harder on the gangs, even if the actual power and proliferation of them is grossly over exaggerated, but I simply do not trust the Gardai with this power. The Louth drug dealer 'sting' recently is a prime example of one branch of the Gardai protecting a dealer for their own ends.

The SCC offers no protection to witnessess and there is no evidence of intimidation of judges, so its simply jingoisim from the politicians.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The problem I have is that the special criminal court has a conviction rate of over 100% (thats actually true). We know innocent people have been given long sentences due to the incorrect sayso of Gardai.

Source for both of these?

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

Source for both of these?

I'll dig out the conviction rate in a bit, but its over 100% due to the fact that more people have been found guilty in absentia than acquitted.

Nicky Kelly and the rest of the "Sallins Gang" is an obvious example of a frame up in the SCC.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'll dig out the conviction rate in a bit, but its over 100% due to the fact that more people have been found guilty in absentia than acquitted.

That's a strange definition of "conviction rate".

Nicky Kelly and the rest of the "Sallins Gang" is an obvious example of a frame up in the SCC.

That's one example - not a compelling case for the SCC being more prone to miscarriages of justice than any other court.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a strange definition of "conviction rate".

The SCC has a dramatically higher conviction rate than any other court. Thats not in dispute. You can count on the finger of one hand the acquittals in the court in 40 years. To me that is not healthy and heavily skewed in favour of evidence of a corrupt police force.

There is a legitimate question as to why we still have this court as I have not heard of any jury tampering or intimidation of judges.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's one example - not a compelling case for the SCC being more prone to miscarriages of justice than any other court.

Conviction rate in the Criminal Courts is in the 60 percentile range.

Conviction rate in the Special Criminal Court is over 99%.

Draw your own conclusion as they say.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The SCC has a dramatically higher conviction rate than any other court. Thats not in dispute. You can count on the finger of one hand the acquittals in the court in 40 years. To me that is not healthy and heavily skewed in favour of evidence of a corrupt police force.

If you're starting from the premise that all evidence given by the police is automatically corrupt, then there's not a whole lot of point having a justice system at all.

There is a legitimate question as to why we still have this court as I have not heard of any jury tampering or intimidation of judges.

Maybe we should wait until jury members are murdered in sufficient numbers to justify a non-jury court.

How many dead jurors would be required for you to accept the need for a SCC? One? Ten? A hundred?

Conviction rate in the Criminal Courts is in the 60 percentile range.

Conviction rate in the Special Criminal Court is over 99%.

Draw your own conclusion as they say.

It's clear that you already have.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're starting from the premise that all evidence given by the police is automatically corrupt, then there's not a whole lot of point having a justice system at all.

I would not be a fan of giving people long custodial sentances on the basis of uncorroberated evidence of membership of an organisation from mid ranking policemen. I am doubly nervous of that system when the Gardai are involved. They need to re-earn the trust needed for that power post Donegal.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe we should wait until jury members are murdered in sufficient numbers to justify a non-jury court.

I think we should, yes.

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many dead jurors would be required for you to accept the need for a SCC? One? Ten? A hundred?

One would do. Or even an attempt to kill one. Or an attempt to intimidate one. But as there is no evidence that gangs, either criminal or paramilitary are targetting juries or judges, this entire debate is hypothetical.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I would not be a fan of giving people long custodial sentances on the basis of uncorroberated evidence of membership of an organisation from mid ranking policemen.

How many SCC convictions involve uncorroborated evidence? As in, how many people have been convicted with only the evidence of a Garda and no other evidence whatsoever?

I am doubly nervous of that system when the Gardai are involved.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Gardaí are involved in pretty much every criminal conviction.

They need to re-earn the trust needed for that power post Donegal.

And heaven forbid they should actually be allowed to do their job until such time as you've decided that they're trustworthy.

What would it take, by the way? How many years of absolutely no wrong-doing by any member of the force anywhere in the country will it require before you decide that any other member should be considered trustworthy?

I think we should, yes.

What an excellent approach to take. Perhaps we should also remove mandatory alcohol testing and restraining orders.

One would do. Or even an attempt to kill one. Or an attempt to intimidate one. But as there is no evidence that gangs, either criminal or paramilitary are targetting juries or judges, this entire debate is hypothetical.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a society that is prepared to consider the possibility that the sort of criminal filth we're dealing with here might just consider intimidating a juror.

You say you would rather see a dead juror than a non-jury court. Are you actually this callous, or do you genuinely believe that the possibility of a juror being killed by these murdering scum is so far-fetched as not to be worthy of consideration?

Liam Byrne

Denis Irwin wrote: »

.....after Roy Collins was gunned down by those gangsters last week all because his cousin stood up to them.

There's a possibility that that's not the full story. While it DEFINITELY doesn't make the killing any less despicable, the "once-removed, they're going after cousins" angle is being exaggerated, because I've heard stories that Roy Collins - rightly - might have stopped the guys selling drugs in the pub.

Whether saying it was because of the cousin's actions was a political attempt to get the problem dealt with once and for all, it seems to have been ill-advised because while it might have woken up the establishment, it's VERY counter-productive in terms of getting the public's assistance against these scum.

Bottom line is that FF and John O'Donoghue were elected on a "zero-tolerance" policy, TEN YEARS AGO....and it's only NOW they're doing anything about it ?

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many SCC convictions involve uncorroborated evidence? As in, how many people have been convicted with only the evidence of a Garda and no other evidence whatsoever?

I don't have that statistic, but anecdotally there have been membership convictions just on Garda say so with no other evidence.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, the Gardaí are involved in pretty much every criminal conviction. And heaven forbid they should actually be allowed to do their job until such time as you've decided that they're trustworthy.

While I have no problem with a Garda saying they suspect that person x is a member of group y, I do have a problem with that being taken as evidence strong enough to convict. Whats difficult for you to understand about that position?

oscarBravo wrote: »

What would it take, by the way? How many years of absolutely no wrong-doing by any member of the force anywhere in the country will it require before you decide that any other member should be considered trustworthy? What an excellent approach to take.

Its arbitrary, but when the last of the senior gardai implicated in Donegal leave the force, we can begin that process.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Perhaps we should also remove mandatory alcohol testing and restraining orders.

I don't agree with random alcohol tests and with a restraining order a judge has been convinced there is a resonable risk to the person involved, so I don't see your point.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a society that is prepared to consider the possibility that the sort of criminal filth we're dealing with here might just consider intimidating a juror.

And I'm prepared to consider the possibility of UFO's. It doesn't mean that we should remove the right to a fair trial on the basis there might be intimidation of jurors.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You say you would rather see a dead juror than a non-jury court.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that until there is any form of evidence of a plot to manipulate the judicial system, this debate is simply sabre rattling and scare tactics.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you actually this callous, or do you genuinely believe that the possibility of a juror being killed by these murdering scum is so far-fetched as not to be worthy of consideration?

At the moment, yes.

If that situation changes, the State should react. But as of this moment its pie in the sky stuff.

I'm much more concerned about Gardai being intimidated by the gangs, one of whom I know personally and it was not pretty and not dealt with.

Liam Byrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

They weren't planned murders. THe operatives broke the rules.

So that's OK, then. Thanks for clarifying that, because I was under the impression that ANY murder, planned or otherwise, was wrong.

And if the operatives "broke the rules", how come SF sickeningly campaigned to have them released ?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I was responding to the other posters question, and guess what, no judges have been killed by provos.

And guess what, while you're TECHNICALLY correct by narrowing it down to judges, the Gardai are part of the "judiciary" and law and order in this country.

And Gardai HAVE been murdered.

Liam Byrne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'll dig out the conviction rate in a bit, but its over 100% due to the fact that more people have been found guilty in absentia than acquitted.

Say wha ???

If even ONE was acquitted then the rate is UNDER 100%.

OhNoYouDidn't

I don't want to get into the Adare row but:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And guess what, while you're TECHNICALLY correct by narrowing it down to judges, the Gardai are part of the "judiciary" and law and order in this country.

And Gardai HAVE been murdered.

How many have been murdered for giving evidence in court?

Zero?

OhNoYouDidn't

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Say wha ???

If even ONE was acquitted then the rate is UNDER 100%.

Depends which way you look at it.

More people have been sentenced in abestentia than acquitted. So for every 100 people who stood in front of the court, 101 were found guilty.