Leading lawyers call for Bill on gangs to be withdrawn

Spudmonkey

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its the fact that corroborated proof is enshrined in our law no reasonable doubt in criminal law in a 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.

So what finding guns in someones house isn't proof? What kind of evidence do the guards need? All it seems to get you in this country is a slap on the wrist!

"Now go off and be a good lad, don't be getting involved with those types"

Boston

Spudmonkey wrote: »

So what finding guns in someones house isn't proof? What kind of evidence do the guards need? All it seems to get you in this country is a slap on the wrist!

"Now go off and be a good lad, don't be getting involved with those types"

Now you're just being flippant. You don't know what was found, nor do you know what they've been charged with. They certainly haven't been sentenced. If they do get a slap on the wrist it will be nothing this bill will fix but rather to do with min sentencing and prison resources. You seem to think this Bill is something it very clearly isn;t/

Mr.Micro

Spudmonkey wrote: »

So what finding guns in someones house isn't proof? What kind of evidence do the guards need? All it seems to get you in this country is a slap on the wrist!

"Now go off and be a good lad, don't be getting involved with those types"

As I posted earlier gang crime is a major problem that I do not dispute but we cannot go down the road of making the law unequal and give the Police the opportunities to fit up suspects and throw away the key if they so desire or via pressure from the Government. The law should ge fair and equitable no matter what.

Spudmonkey

Boston wrote: »

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.

Yeah because people connected to witnesses are being killed. Check this out. It was a pretty big story down here a few months back.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0410/1224244362861.html

Tell me, would you testify against someone if they would likely target someone you know, no way would I, regardless of the promises made to me by the legal system.

Boston wrote: »

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.

Why do you know someone who was drafted into a criminal gang recently but found out it wasn't for them?

I'm sure some sort of evidence would have to be provided as well, I doubt its going to be a case of a guard not liking the look of ya.

I think the guards do a fine job, I just don't think they have proper legal backing to finish it off.

Sparks

I love the way that it's taken as read that witnesses and juries can be intimidated or otherwise tampered with, but simultaenously it's assumed that judges are both above temptation and are somehow invulnerable to threats as well...

Mr.Micro

Sparks wrote: »

I love the way that it's taken as read that witnesses and juries can be intimidated or otherwise tampered with, but simultaenously it's assumed that judges are both above temptation and are somehow invulnerable to threats as well...

Or the Gardai for that matter. The whole proposal is open to widespread abuse.

Executive Steve

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.

To be perfectly honest, I'd imagine that if our politicians had had the foresight to go down there and cast their eyes around some years ago we mightn't be in the situation we're in now..

These places aren't exactly wonderful suburban utopias waiting to happen as soon as you round up all the gangs - they've been systematically excluded and deserted and underinvested by the authorities for the entire duration of one of the biggest booms ever experienced by a modern european nation. As a society we have failed them; and now, instead of admitting that, we are going to trample all over our constitution and throw the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial out of the window to the detriment of our the very fabric of our society.

Executive Steve

...and please don't think i'm excusing the actions of the vermin who perpetrate these heinous crimes; it's just that there's more to justice than criminal justice.

Sparks

Frankly, it's not surprising this bill is such a mess. The detailed look at the Misc.Provisions Bill which has been going on in the Shooting forum since it was first mooted (the Misc Bill is also being guillotined through this week) has shown that the Minister may be a good career politician, but he's a fairly lousy legislator.

Executive Steve

I just think it beggars belief that a minister in a government this unpopular is able to come out with this much dreadful legislation and get it passed without a hiccup!

The blasphemy law was bad enough, this one here has sailed through the Dáil in 10 days from start to finish!

wes

I don't think things are really so bad, that we need to abolish jury trials. Surely, there is a less drastic and dangerous method on tackling the gang problem?

To me, the proposed cure, is almost as bad as the disease.

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

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

Hang on there, it's a "fact" or its your "opinion" cos eh, they're not the same. Or in your opinion it's a fact....? :rolleyes:

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

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

Eh because history has shown us time and time and time again what happens when too much power is given to the State, particularly its policing apparatus. The citiizen always losses out. Remember Martin Niemoller

First they came for the gangs........

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I'm sure some sort of evidence would have to be provided as well, I doubt its going to be a case of a guard not liking the look of ya.

.

Aren't you missing the whole point of the argument here. That the Bill does NOT require "some sort of evidence as well" and that one of the distinct dangers is that it MIGHT be a case of a guard not liking the look of you?:rolleyes:

Spudmonkey

Wheely wrote: »

Hang on there, it's a "fact" or its your "opinion" cos eh, they're not the same. Or in your opinion it's a fact....? :rolleyes:

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

I re-phrased it for you...

Wheely wrote: »

Eh because history has shown us time and time and time again what happens when too much power is given to the State, particularly its policing apparatus. The citiizen always losses out. Remember Martin Niemoller

First they came for the gangs........

Comparing Ireland to Nazi Germany? A little on the extreme don't you think?

Wheely wrote: »

Aren't you missing the whole point of the argument here. That the Bill does NOT require "some sort of evidence as well" and that one of the distinct dangers is that it MIGHT be a case of a guard not liking the look of you?:rolleyes:

I haven't read the bill. I don't know the details. What I am trying to say is, take these people who are so strongly against legislation that targets these criminals, from behind their desks, wrapped in cotton wool, and put them out on the street against these thugs, I just like to see if their attitude would change.

From what I've heard, many of the details in this bill seem to be changed on a whim.. I.e. from any guard to only ranking gardai.. If it can change this easily I don't believe it can made watertight and passed in Europe.

I don't believe the problem lies with resources, I think it lies with the quality of the legislation in place at the moment. I think these people need to be handled different to petty criminals, I don't think witnesses can be used in trying their cases and I do think evidence is needed.

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

"

Comparing Ireland to Nazi Germany? A little on the extreme don't you think?

Absolutely not. I'm not saying Ireland is anything like Nazi Germany, I'm merely pointing out what has ALWAYS happened throughout history when the State is given too much power. And it doesn't have to become Nazi Germany for people rights to get trampled on. A for instance-high profile murder, say a mother and two kids caught in the cross-fire, hugh public pressure on the cops to take someone down for it, but they don't know who did it. This legislation would allow them to pick out anyone involved in a gang, marginally or not, or maybe not at all and have them locked up for 15 years. You think that's possible? Or am I being extreme again? Never in a Western democracy right...?

Spudmonkey wrote: »

"
I haven't read the bill. I don't know the details. What I am trying to say is, take these people who are so strongly against legislation that targets these criminals, from behind their desks, wrapped in cotton wool, and put them out on the street against these thugs, I just like to see if their attitude would change..

OK SERIOUSLY, not having read the Bill, I can stomach, but in fairness its only 34 pages long it wouldn't kill ya to read it. But you don't even know the details? And you come on to a message board defending it, or criticising those who come out against it as "behind their desks wrapped in cotton wool" without even knowing the basic details of what they're protesting against!!!! Jesus man, the Bill could provide for waterboarding and internment for all you know about it and you think you've the right to criticise those who've bothered to take the time to read it and voice their legitimate concerns.

Here's an idea, maybe at least read a newspaper article covering the basci elements of the Bill before you come on here mouthing off about those who have.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

From what I've heard, many of the details in this bill seem to be changed on a whim.. I.e. from any guard to only ranking gardai.. If it can change this easily I don't believe it can made watertight and passed in Europe.

I don't believe the problem lies with resources, I think it lies with the quality of the legislation in place at the moment. I think these people need to be handled different to petty criminals, I don't think witnesses can be used in trying their cases and I do think evidence is needed.

Yeah from what you've heard.........
Whatever, from what I've heard you don't have clue what your talking about, I'll wager your knowledge of the "legislation in place at the moment" is on a par with your knowledge of the proposed legislation you are discussing at the moment. That is to say BUPKISS.

passed in Europe?
handled different than petty criminals?
No witnesses?
Evidence is needed?

What are you talking about exactly?

Joey the lips

Do you know what this says to the govt... Up yours you stupid fools to the batt o keaffes, ned o keaffes, mary harneys and of course the minister intended this says wake up and enact propper legislation instead of the "Program for govt" sh1t you constantly spout!

nesf

Boston wrote: »

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.

The Constitution. In most criminal cases it would be impossible to argue that normal courts can't prosecute them and juryless trials would be open to successful challenge in court. Now if that part of the Constitution was reworded into something looser then, maybe the above would be a problem but as is, no.

Het-Field

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...

You are an absolute joker. Your attitudes towards the legal profession are some of the most ignorant I have ever seen. The constitution has rights (specified and unspecified) towards natural justice. We also live in a system where by the "presumption of innocence" prevails. If you want that removed, call a referendum. If not, be quiet. People are entitled to a defence under the fundamental protection of our constitution.

The behaviour of ganglords has nothing to do with Lawyers. There is a culture which they are born into, and this is reflected in the actions of people like Liam Keane (at the age of 17). Blaming it on the lawyers is the single greatest cop out I have ever come across.

You are a piece of work.

In terms of the Bill itself, the provisions dealing with uncorroborated Garda evidence is some of the most worrying I have ever seen. I would almost see it as more proportionate to intern these lads until the investiagtion has run its course. This provision MUST be referred to the Supreme Court or to the Presdient in the context of the right to a "Fair Trial".

StopTheDrugWar!

"ANYTHING?"

If you want to get rid of gangland crime, the only way you can do it is by first legalising drugs. You may think that sounds extreme. But to me it doesn't sound as extreme as eliminating trial by jury.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Comparing Ireland to Nazi Germany? A little on the extreme don't you think?

I'd think not, that is the way we are heading. So basically a gang is any group of 3 people committing a crime. If a garda "suspects" someone is in a gang they are allowed interrogate them for a week and then if they "know" you're in a gang (the way people always "know" things and are wrong) you get sent to a juryless trial and the gaurds opinion is used as evidence against you.

It's more than just gang bosses who could be affected by this. Basically anyone who has any dealings in contraband could be subjected to trial without jury, unless it can be proven they made the contraband themselves striclty for personal use. Otherwise they are "part of a criminal organisation".

Then if the government bans more stuff, anyone who subverts their oppressive laws is refused the right to a jury.


A jury of the people is the last line of defence a democracy has against oppressive laws.

Jury nullification has happened before, and it will happen again. This law is quite simply a blow to democracy. A comparison to nazi germany is highly appropriate.

Bren Jacob

Iv spent some time reading through this thread and I must say its pretty depressing stuff.

Several of the same guys who thread after thread lambast FF for their handling of the economy, church abuse scandels etc. etc. are now cheering from the rafters for these same guys for putting forward a bill that if nothing else should have been debated more thoroughly before becoming law.

If ever there was a country that has got the government it deserves then Ireland is it!

Spudmonkey

Wheely wrote: »

OK SERIOUSLY, not having read the Bill, I can stomach, but in fairness its only 34 pages long it wouldn't kill ya to read it. But you don't even know the details? And you come on to a message board defending it, or criticising those who come out against it as "behind their desks wrapped in cotton wool" without even knowing the basic details of what they're protesting against!!!! Jesus man, the Bill could provide for waterboarding and internment for all you know about it and you think you've the right to criticise those who've bothered to take the time to read it and voice their legitimate concerns.

Here's an idea, maybe at least read a newspaper article covering the basci elements of the Bill before you come on here mouthing off about those who have.

Whoa buddy... First off, I'm not defending this bill, I'm defending the decision to treat members of criminal gangs different to members of the ordinary public. The reason I think different laws apply to them is because they choose to live by their own laws, not the ones set out for ordinary people.

Secondly, what I know of the bill is what I hear on radio and read on the paper. I don't read new bills once they are uploaded on the oireachtas webpage. On your advice though I did read the bill, I did the see the problem a few people have mentioned and I do awknowledge it. If guards were able to produce evidence in order to prove they were members of criminal gangs, then I would agree with that. Please try to speak in a less condescending tone.

Wheely wrote: »

Yeah from what you've heard.........
Whatever, from what I've heard you don't have clue what your talking about, I'll wager your knowledge of the "legislation in place at the moment" is on a par with your knowledge of the proposed legislation you are discussing at the moment. That is to say BUPKISS.

Again, I am not versed in Irish law, I don't know the ins and outs of the justice system, what I do judge it by though is results. For example there is a member of a well known criminal gang in Limerick who was recently put away. He had 50 previous convictions! 50 too many in my opinion.. Because of this I don't have to visit the oireachtas webpage on a regular basis. I can judge the effectiveness of the current legislation this way.

Wheely wrote: »

passed in Europe?
handled different than petty criminals?
No witnesses?
Evidence is needed?

What are you talking about exactly?

What I mean by the Europe comment is that I presume if someone was convicted on the details of this bill, and it was appealed, as it stands it would probably be thrown out of the European Court of Human Rights? Correct me if I'm wrong. I explained the rest above.

So far I've seen nothing but condemnation, condemnation, condemnation. Has the legal eagle any solutions as to what should be done?

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Whoa buddy... First off, I'm not defending this bill, I'm defending the decision to treat members of criminal gangs different to members of the ordinary public. The reason I think different laws apply to them is because they choose to live by their own laws, not the ones set out for ordinary people.

You criticised those who came out against the Bill as "behind their desks wrapped in cotton wool". As you've now read the Bill I'm sure you can see that they, I, and indeed anyone else who has criticised this Bill all have very valid concerns.

As for treating those in criminal gangs differently to members of the ordinary public, well, they are treated differently in theory. They're surveilled, arrested, charged, and convicted, when the evidence is there to do so. Sometimes the system fails, this is the nature of all systems.

The whole point of a legal system is uniformity-we don't have different laws for "them" and "us", the same set of laws apply to everyone, that's how everyone knows how to regulate their behavior. You abide by them, or you don't.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Secondly, what I know of the bill is what I hear on radio and read on the paper. I don't read new bills once they are uploaded on the oireachtas webpage. On your advice though I did read the bill, I did the see the problem a few people have mentioned and I do awknowledge it. If guards were able to produce evidence in order to prove they were members of criminal gangs, then I would agree with that. Please try to speak in a less condescending tone.

Fine we agree on that. I think.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Again, I am not versed in Irish law, I don't know the ins and outs of the justice system, what I do judge it by though is results. For example there is a member of a well known criminal gang in Limerick who was recently put away. He had 50 previous convictions! 50 too many in my opinion.. Because of this I don't have to visit the oireachtas webpage on a regular basis. I can judge the effectiveness of the current legislation this way.

You can judge a lot of things that way if you so please. The utility of current legislation, its enforcement or lack thereof, the leniency of the judiciary, the utility of the independence of the judiciary, the lack of political will to tackle deeper-rooted problems of poverty and social exclusion and so on and so on. If your so inclined. I'm not. And with respect, IMO, its a far from accurate way to judge the effectiveness of current legislation.


One story about a guy who got put away for his 51st offence is not a barometer of the effectiveness of current legislation. Nor are a hundred similar stories. There are a myriad of factors which contribute to this situation.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

What I mean by the Europe comment is that I presume if someone was convicted on the details of this bill, and it was appealed, as it stands it would probably be thrown out of the European Court of Human Rights? Correct me if I'm wrong. I explained the rest above.

No your not wrong, although there are a few areas of law in Ireland now which are probably out of line with ECHR jurisprudence, its never stopped the govt from passing a bill before.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

So far I've seen nothing but condemnation, condemnation, condemnation. Has the legal eagle any solutions as to what should be done?

Who's the legal eagle now? Me? Please don't be so condescending......:rolleyes:

I'm not a legislator, so I probably won't be offering up an alternative bill anytime soon. Then again I never claimed to have all the answers. I was merely showing my solidarity with the leading lawyers calling for this Bill to be withdrawn, as was the topic of the thread.:D

Executive Steve

Never thought i'd say this, but the thread on this very topic over on After Hours - of all places! - is actually worth a read (I'm assuming a good few of you serious Politics forum people are generally loath to venture into those yore-ma-infested waters)


(and now back on topic)

Manic Moran

clown bag wrote: »

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.

I don't know if there's one proposed in Ireland, but most US States have legal definitions in their penal codes.

Following link has most of the examples.
http://www.streetgangs.com/laws/statesdefined.html

NTM

FTA69

Spudmonkey wrote: »

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.

Grand. So while you're lambasting everyone opposed to this bill as being "wrapped up in cotton wool" you don't actually live in a crime-ridden area yourself? The letter includes signatories from both defence and prosecution lawyers, people who would be acutely aware of the suffering of their particular clients, and the capabilities of the criminals in question. They'd know a lot more about it than you would from talking to your old doll's work mate or whatever.

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.

There's also some guards who couldn't give a f*ck about what goes on in Ireland sink estates, as long as the plebs are at it they couldn't care less. That's not all of them mind you, but a good chunk of them in my eyes. Ireland already has some of the most stringent legislation in the whole of Europe, too stringent as it happens. Why not have an anonymous jury system via video link? Getting rid of the foundations of a fair legal system is never right, in any circumstances, least of all as a result of a knee-jerk by Fianna Fáil.

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.

If people like you get your way chances are the cops will throw the blame wherever, "he's in a gang your honour, sure he's an awful messer". Bang, four years. Justice won't even come into the equation.

Sand

Right - Heres the bill in question

From the bill:

In proceedings under this Part the
opinion of any member of the Garda Sı´ocha´na
who appears to the Court to possess the appropriate
expertise shall, subject to section 74B, be
admissible in evidence in relation to the issue as to
25 the existence of a particular criminal organisation.

(2) In subsection (1) ‘expertise’ means experience,
specialised knowledge or qualifications.
(3) Without limiting the matters that can properly
be taken into account, in the formation of
30 such opinion, by the member of the Garda Sı´ocha
´na referred to in that subsection, it shall be permissible
for that member, in forming the opinion
referred to in subsection (1), to take into account
any previous convictions for arrestable offences of
35 persons believed by that member to be part of the
organisation to which the opinion relates.

So all the bollocks about a Garda arriving up and having someone imprisoned because "Shure, that fooker cut me off when I was driving up here your honour!" or similar "Cos I feel like it!" is a bit over done.

A Garda will not only have to express an opinion, they will have to demonstrate to the court that they possess the appropriate expertise for their opinion to be given weight. This is where judges and defence lawyers are drooling at making fools of Gardai in the court.

The vast majority of the bill is dealing with rules of evidence.

As to the claim that theres no evidence of juries being interfered with, again, the vast majority of the bill is dealing with rules of evidence. There is a reason for that.

The hardest part is not protecting juries (though the bill deals with ensuring that juries cannot be intimidated). It is persuading terrified witnesses that that can be made safe from these gangs. That is why the vast majority of the bill is dealing with rules of evidence. That is why the bill allows the opinion (often based on the evidence that witnesses might give to a Garda in private but never in a court where they could be identified) of a suitably experienced and knowledgeable Gardai to be taken as evidence.

Non jury trials have been used successfully and with restraint to deal with the Provos and other criminal organisations. The concept is being expanded to deal with a wider range of criminal gangs but I dont see anything particularly worrying.

Mr.Micro

Sand wrote: »

Non jury trials have been used successfully and with restraint to deal with the Provos and other criminal organisations. The concept is being expanded to deal with a wider range of criminal gangs but I dont see anything particularly worrying.

It may only be successful if it is operated with honesty and integrity by all parties at all times, how can that be guaranteed? In Britain in the past as we know it was common place for the Police to fit suspects up and the Judge took the word of the Police as fact. The proposal is still a crude attempt to deal with a problem that has been allowed to fester for years. It will still not stop the likes of the big money gangs from getting the best lawyers and find ways of carrying on business.

legal eagle 1

This Bill is just another foolish act by the Government trying to push something through without any expert opinion in the hope that the public will go 'ooh at least the government are doing something proactive'. Fact is they may make the whole situation a lot worse. Our system is a common law system and they are trying to change hundreds of years of precedent on what i can see as a whim!!

Taxipete29

The bill has passed now. RIP justice.