Leading lawyers call for Bill on gangs to be withdrawn

nesf

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0708/1224250237824.html?digest=1

Worthy of debate, I find one part of their letter odd though. Specifically:

The Minister’s intention to abolish jury trial for gangland cases, to let gardaí of any rank give opinion evidence about the existence of a gang, and not to require corroboration of such evidence are “the most pressing” reasons for “real and serious concern”, the lawyers say in their letter.

The right to jury trial is enshrined in the Constitution, they say, and is only taken away in cases where ordinary courts are “inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order.

The Minister would seem to want to abolish jury crime for gangland cases precisely because the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice etc. It's following the same line of argument behind the Criminal Assets Bureau, i.e. that there exists in Ireland a class of criminal more than willing to threaten, and quite possibly harm, juries to the extent that jury trials simply cannot work.

I'd fully echo their concern about the broadness of the opinion part of the bill, to allow a Garda of any rank this kind of privilege seems excessive, surely it would be enough to limit it to top ranking Garda who presumably would take the responsibility more seriously?

From a liberty point of view the bill is definitely treading very close to the line but as my father-in-law put it: "Juries can be gotten at". In such cases where this is a very real risk surely the benefits outweigh the costs of such special criminal courts?

Darragh29

Would this be the same gang of privilaged pea balled marble mouthed prostitutes that you can see down in Courts 40-44 of the Dublin District Court in the Bridewell every hour of every day, defending the absolute indenfensible, lying through their teeth about their clients trying to "rehabiliate" themselves as the client openly sniggers at the judge... All these gangland characters start out in the District Court, they don't just become gangland figures overnight, and maybe if the legal profession didn't continually lie about the chances of their clients reoffending and getting them through the revolving door system, then maybe we might not have as big as problem as we do have with gangland crime.

Honestly, if you ever want to see a pure fu*king charade in full swing, go down to the Dublin District Courthouse in the Bridewell in Dublin...

Executive Steve

Darragh29 wrote: »

Would this be the same gang of privilaged pea balled marble mouthed prostitutes that you can see down in Courts 40-44 of the Dublin District Court in the Bridewell every hour of every day, defending the absolute indenfensible, lying through their teeth about their clients trying to "rehabiliate" themselves as the client openly sniggers at the judge... All these gangland characters start out in the District Court, they don't just become gangland figures overnight, and maybe if the legal profession didn't continually lie about the chances of their clients reoffending and getting them through the revolving door system, then maybe we might not have as big as problem as we do have with gangland crime.

Honestly, if you ever want to see a pure fu*king charade in full swing, go down to the Dublin District Courthouse in the Bridewell in Dublin...

I think the lawyers are being remarkably altruistic here!

They dined out on tribunals all though the celtic tiger years, every planning fiasco, the beef tribunals, the mahon tribunal, etc etc... Clearly even THEY think the amount of money the state is going to have to spend gluing the shattered bits of constitution back together and fixing Ireland's soon to be destroyed international credibility is too much for the nation's beleagured finances to bear!


*edit*


although the fact that i am attempting to engage in calm rational debate on a politics forum with someone who thinks the concept of a fair trial is pinko liberal business would suggest i've stayed up too late again...

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

I'd fully echo their concern about the broadness of the opinion part of the bill, to allow a Garda of any rank this kind of privilege seems excessive, surely it would be enough to limit it to top ranking Garda who presumably would take the responsibility more seriously?

Indeed. Its open to abuse.

lostexpectation

yerman was on the radio this morning was like fine dermot show us a jury verdict that was perverse, ie against the weight of the evidence. and we might have the beginnings of discussion on this thing,

its like blasphemy.

dermot is going ah sure ye knows it happening.

nah. that ain't good enough

Nodin

There's been intimidation of witnesses in some cases certainly, but I've seen no convincing case for widespread interference with Juries.

walshb

I am no fan of lawyers and I am so anti crime, as are most, but this move is a typical
example of how we here jump head first into something without thinking.
This is setting a dangerous precedent and maybe if the Gardai got off their
arses and did their job, we wouldn't be asking for this ridiculous bill.

So, now we are expected to trust the "opinion" of a garda as opposed to actual hard
and corroborative evidence. So, they can't get the evidence, but hey, your "opinion" will
suffice. We will indeed be shamed throughout Europe with this silly attitude.

Gardai in the past have been proved to be liars and cheats, not all, but still some, so NO,
I don't believe that any person should be hung out to dry based on the sole "opinion" of a garda.

Darragh29

We need to get real here, these people need to be dealt with no, WHATEVER the cost. If someone finds that they are being held in custody by the state, then the constitution has provided a mechanism for them to apply to the High Court for an inquiry on foot of a Haebus Corpus application.

Think about this for a minute, how can you deal with these people fairly when they have no issue whatsoever with shooting dead a witness or a jury member for that matter. These people live in a coked out world where anyone can have their head blown open for anything!

walshb

I'm all for dealing with these scum, but seriously dropping standards
and bringing in any old "evidence" is not the way to go.
It is said that even RETIRED members of the force can give
their "opinion." Now, does this also include those who may have
been sacked from the gardai or those who retired in disgrace?

It's simply this country panicking and bringing in silly
policies to deal with very serious issues. Tackle it head on, with
full force and commitment and passion and bring in
serious prison time for gangland crime, any gangland crime,
but this is just plain silly and dangerous, and shows a lack
of energy on the part of the country.

"Ah feck it, we have no real evidence here, just convict the sod
on the coppers opinion.":rolleyes:

Spudmonkey

It would be nice to move those lawyers into some place like St Mary's Park or South Hill and see how long it takes them to change their tune.

walshb

Spudmonkey wrote: »

It would be nice to move those lawyers into some place like St Mary's Park or South Hill and see how long it takes them to change their tune.

So, you think it's right that a person can be locked away purely based
on the "opinion" of a person? Garda or not, he/she is still a person who
may have it wrong and may know they have it wrong, and may lie
thru their teeth as well.

Riskymove

Nodin wrote: »

There's been intimidation of witnesses in some cases certainly, but I've seen no convincing case for widespread interference with Juries.

I believe that's their point alright

lostexpectation

Darragh29 wrote: »

Think about this for a minute, how can you deal with these people fairly when they have no issue whatsoever with shooting dead a witness or a jury member for that matter. These people live in a coked out world where anyone can have their head blown open for anything!

wow now theres some evidence you can go to court with daragh's fantasies

walshb

As far as I am aware it is a coppers view on whether or not a person is
a member of a criminal gang and whether or not a gang exists.

Aherne is on Kenny RTE now saying this

cornbb

My concerns with this bill have already been covered here. We are basically throwing away fundamental principles of justice in order to lazily tackle a problem which could be tackled using a little more thought from the legislators, and a little more hard work from the justice system.

To those of you who claim we should do "ANYTHING" in order to tackle gangs, I wonder whether you've fully thought through what "anything" could extend to, and thought about how legislation like this could start to lead us down slippery slopes. What's next? Curfews? Martial law? Internments in an Irish Guantanémo bay?

There's no reason why we should sacrifice basic liberties for security. If the government could actually put a little serious thought and a little more sweat into it, we should have both.

Spudmonkey

walshb wrote: »

So, you think it's right that a person can be locked away purely based
on the "opinion" of a person? Garda or not, he/she is still a person who
may have it wrong and may know they have it wrong, and may lie
thru their teeth as well.

No I don't. But what I do know is that a lot of these people that pass opinions on these laws are those who don't have to go home and live beside these people. I've heard stories (from where my girlfriend works), of where a manager left a certain person rob their store because they live in the same housing estate. This is how afraid some people are of these thugs. They don't want to confront them because they know they will make life awkward for them.

I find a lot of the people who disagree with these new laws are from places far away from all the trouble. All I'm saying is just try living in one of these areas for a week, see if you still against this legislation after that.

seamus

I was initially reasonably supportive of this bill, but after hearing various pieces and seeing the groups opposed to it/concerned by it, I'm no longer all that convinced that it's necessary nor will it stand up to scrutiny.

Pat Rabbitte pointed out during the week, that we don't need a new bill in order to have juryless trials. The DPP as it stands has the option to prosecute in the special criminal court without a jury where they believe that juries would face intimidation in the normal courts. So if they need to be able to have juryless trials for these scum, why aren't they doing that now under the existing legislation?

There's nothing stopping us from completely anonymising a jury - remove them from the court and put them in a separate room with several live video feeds from the courtroom. So jury intimidation can be mitigated without any legislation. I think the primary concern here is witness intimidation. By lowering the standard of evidence required to be given in the special criminal court, they're effectively removing the need for proper witnesses. But witness intimidation has been going on since the court system was conceived. Surely we've learned some lessons on dealing with it beyond abandoning the entire point of having witnesses in the first place?

There are valid criticisms and concerns, and would like to hear more from civil liberties groups on it.

I'm not sure anyone is going to get enthused at the site of 'leading lawyers' leading the attack though.

I wonder if that list was correlated with 'lawyers who make most on free legal aid' what the results would be. Not that I am suggesting for one moment that money would be a concern...

walshb

I hear it is NOT only defence lawyers who are anti the bill, but also the prosecutors.
This is telling! I really am all for coming the heavy, but this attitude of "we cannot get
them fairly, so let's resort to desperate and unsafe methods," is not the answer.

If the authorities we pay really put their heart and soul into this disease, then maybe
we can get this scum. The main problem to me seems to be that the coppers were allowing these scum to blow each other away and were happy to, but in allowing this, it has simply escalated so much and now we have innocents being butchered.

Seriously, how many gangland murders were solved? Feck all. That is not a coincidence, it's a lack of caring and passion to solve the bloody murders. Okay, maybe the cops don't give a toss about these murders, but for training and solving purposes, they should have put more effort into catching the killers.

Now, we have innocent people being killed too and suddenly the authorities are panicking and are trying to rush thru a bill with little thought, typical way we do
things here

Boston

nesf wrote: »

From a liberty point of view the bill is definitely treading very close to the line but as my father-in-law put it: "Juries can be gotten at". In such cases where this is a very real risk surely the benefits outweigh the costs of such special criminal courts?

And Gardai can be corupt. More then one innocent man ended up behind bars due to garda testimony.

Besides that, I can't help but feel this is all very miss leading. They can't protect witnesses so they've invented this threat against jurors to try mislead us into thinking they're being proactive. Also I can't help but think that some people in the Gardai and the Government might feel it will be easier to convict a criminal if you only need to convince one judge.

If this bill gots through, what's to stop them taking about everyone's right to a jurry trial? I know if I was accused of something, it's what I'd want.

Nodin

Darragh29 wrote: »

We need to get real here, these people need to be dealt with no, WHATEVER the cost.

No, actually. Knee jerk reactions are the kind of thing that will see their sentences overturned.

Spudmonkey

Nodin wrote: »

No, actually. Knee jerk reactions are the kind of thing that will see their sentences overturned.

Precisely, this is exactly what will happen. They will get off on some "technicality", like they always do. Besides, putting the head guy in some criminal guy away doesn't automatically kill the gang, you have to get all of them because there are others coming up the ranks.

So tell me how are you going to get evidence and get someone to testify against a full criminal gang?

And forget about blaming the guards, there was a gun raid on a house(s) in St Mary's Park in Limerick this morning, so they are catching the criminals.

They won't be put away because the problem is with the legislation, not the gardai.

FTA69

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I find a lot of the people who disagree with these new laws are from places far away from all the trouble. All I'm saying is just try living in one of these areas for a week, see if you still against this legislation after that.

Says you. Do you "live in one of these areas" or are you relying solely upon the experience of your "girlfriend's manager in work" while insinuating those opposed to this crap are upper-class pinkos? I come from a working-class area, and have been on the negative end of drug dealing scumbags and general sh*theads in the past, probably a lot more than most to be honest. It think this bill is complete and utter nonsense, the concept of a guard (of any rank) having the power to designate someone guilty of gang-membership and to have that admitted as "evidence" is nothing shy of a disgrace. Especially considering the shenanigans the cops themselves get up to. Ireland already has a raft of legislation to deal with the gang problem, legislation more draconian than most EU countries at that.

Manic Moran

to allow a Garda of any rank this kind of privilege seems excessive, surely it would be enough to limit it to top ranking Garda who presumably would take the responsibility more seriously?

I disagree with you on this bit. Eventually you end up talking about levels we call 'echelons above reality.' I would submit that a humble Garda who has been assigned to the Gang Division, and has worked a specific location with a specific focus for some time is liable to be far better versed in the realities than the District Superintendent, who not only has to focus on everything, but also is likely to get his information from the exact same person you suggest should not testify. Instead of 'from the horse's mouth', or as near as you can get, you end up with the same information which has been filtered/disorted through one or two layers of reports, and a witness who oftentimes will have to reply to a question with "I do not have that information at this time, I need to research it" and will then go and ask the same humble Garda for the information which might be otherwise presented on the spot.

NTM

Spudmonkey

FTA69 wrote: »

Says you. Do you "live in one of these areas" or are you relying solely upon the experience of your "girlfriend's manager in work" while insinuating those opposed to this crap are upper-class pinkos?

No I am relying on her first hand account as the person in question was thrown out of the store while flinging a torrent of abuse at her. My girlfriend doesn't get paid enough for that crap.

FTA69 wrote: »

It think this bill is complete and utter nonsense, the concept of a guard (of any rank) having the power to designate someone guilty of gang-membership and to have that admitted as "evidence" is nothing shy of a disgrace. Especially considering the shenanigans the cops themselves get up to. Ireland already has a raft of legislation to deal with the gang problem, legislation more draconian than most EU countries at that.

I know there are some guards who know where the problem lies, they can't do anything. They could probably drive around the problem estates and point out who is living in which house, how they are all related, what position they hold in the gang, etc.

Yeah Ireland has a raft of legislation alright, what a huge success that has been to say they need to introduce more.

In my opinion, people like those who shot Roy Collins, abdicated their humans rights the second the pulled the trigger. I can't help feeling there are people on this board who feel otherwise.

Boston

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I know there are some guards who know where the problem lies, they can't do anything. They could probably drive around the problem estates and point out who is living in which house, how they are all related, what position they hold in the gang, etc.

Yeah Ireland has a raft of legislation alright, what a huge success that has been to say they need to introduce more.

In my opinion, people like those who shot Roy Collins, abdicated their humans rights the second the pulled the trigger. I can't help feeling there are people on this board who feel otherwise.

What makes you think more legislation will solve the problem then? It's not the legislation thats stopping the gardai but rather the resources to get the evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. Even when they do get convictions the sentences often don't represent value for money. If anything this new legislation will simply lessen the burden of evidence required without address the true issue, chronic under resourcing and miss management of existing resources.

Mr.Micro

The Minister’s intention to abolish jury trial for gangland cases, to let gardaí of any rank give opinion evidence about the existence of a gang, and not to require corroboration of such evidence are “the most pressing” reasons for “real and serious concern”, the lawyers say in their letter.

This proposal is a step backwards IMO and the Gardai are not above a bit of corruption as we have seen in the past. A Garda points the finger at someone "he is in a gang " and in probability that will be enough for the law. Its incredible and outrageous. It would not be enough though for the crook politicians and developers that have plagued our country for the last 20 years in tandem with the gangs. Absolutely It goes against the principles of real justice and our constitution. It is a primitive response to a major problem ie gang crime/warfare that has been allowed by this Government to proliferate without check in the last 20 years. Do it the proper way Ahern and get to grips with the problem and get a proper police task force to deal with it and do not change the law.

Dirk Gently

What's the definition of a gang? 3 or more people whom any Garda suggests is involved in crime? I can see this being wide open for abuse tbh. Are there any checks to prevent it being used against people who aren't hardened criminals, for example a protest group or picket line, should any random Garda feel like forming an opinion on their activities?

I'm not saying it would be used in that way, just wondering if there is a line, or if that line is simply up to the Gardai to decide.

Spudmonkey

Boston wrote: »

What makes you think more legislation will solve the problem then? It's not the legislation thats stopping the gardai but rather the resources to get the evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. Even when they do get convictions the sentences often don't represent value for money. If anything this new legislation will simply lessen the burden of evidence required without address the true issue, chronic under resourcing and miss management of existing resources.

Its the fact that the legislation thats there is pretty much useless IMO, it needs to be tougher.

Like I said there was a gun raid on a house in Limerick this morning. These people will probably be back on the street by lunchtime. It wasn't resources in this case was it?

I'm fed up of hearing about some thug up in court, with 40-odd previous convictions. I mean come on, if someone has 40 something previous convictions, what is he doing on the street in the first place? Someone like that should be locked away, not out commiting other crimes.

I mean why are people so fearful that gardai will target them? Are they on the fringes of doing something illegal?

Mr.Micro

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Its the fact that the legislation thats there is pretty much useless IMO, it needs to be tougher.

I mean why are people so fearful that gardai will target them? Are they on the fringes of doing something illegal?

Its the fact that corroborated proof is enshrined in our law and no reasonable doubt in criminal law in our democracy and this law will reduce that to the word of a Garda. Gangs now who is next? The law should be equal for all.

Boston

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Its the fact that the legislation thats there is pretty much useless IMO, it needs to be tougher.

Like I said there was a gun raid on a house in Limerick this morning. These people will probably be back on the street by lunchtime. It wasn't resources in this case was it?

I'm fed up of hearing about some thug up in court, with 40-odd previous convictions. I mean come on, if someone has 40 something previous convictions, what is he doing on the street in the first place? Someone like that should be locked away, not out commiting other crimes.

I highly doubt they'll be back on the street if caught with guns. But leave that aside, what in the currect bill do you think would effect them getting released? Theres a huge problem with witness intimidation in the country, but rather then deal with that problem we're going to bring in legislation which allows the word of a gardai (based on who knows) to be used as evidence.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I mean why are people so fearful that gardai will target them? Are they on the fringes of doing something illegal?

Because everyone makes mistakes, the word of one person should be enough to take away anyones rights. If they know these people are in gangs, why can't they provide documented evidence to support it? I think all this is smoke and mirrors to account for the poor job the Gardai are doing.