Leading lawyers call for Bill on gangs to be withdrawn

legal eagle 1

It passed by a majority of 118 to 23. So this means we have only 23 people of any sense in the Dail!!

Lockstep

I was away with the army reserves for the past week and the Star is the paper of choice for most of my unit.

Read some ranting opinion piece on this issue which basically said;
THe legal eagles were out of touch with reality and only oppose the bill so that they could to make money off the gangs.
That the rights of the victims are being put far below that of the offenders
That the Irish times is an elitst newspaper read by a fraction of the population
That the legal eagles, in opposing the BIll were somehow being elitist and defending privilege (a universal justice system is elitist...somehow)
Etc etc etc (many references to THEY DONT KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE!)

I oppose it; way too open to abuse. I favour things like what the Americans have (anonymous juries for example) and giving the Gardai more power is a bad idea given what happened with the stiching up in Donegal IIRC.
By lowering our standards we are letting these scumbags win. Becoming a state with a disregard for due process isn't something I want to see happening.

Sand

The bill has passed now. RIP justice.

Yes, the secret police are knocking on my door as we speak. Trying to hold them off.

Set my people fre...

Wheely

Sand wrote: »

Yes, the secret police are knocking on my door as we speak. Trying to hold them off.

Set my people fre...

You don't agree it's a bad bill at all?

Sand

Its not perfect but I dont see jackboots being added to the Garda uniform either. I imagine the impact of the bill will be underwhelming, for all sides. Scumbags will still be on the streets. Random people wont be picked up and locked away for 20 years because they give a Garda a dirty look.

opo

I find myself utterly reassured when the ambulance chasers feel disheartened.

opo

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

It passed by a majority of 118 to 23. So this means we have only 23 people of any sense in the Dail!!

I take it that you do realise that of those 23 - there is probably a disproportionate amount of legal advocates that are non-representative of the increasing productive, unemployed and unemployable in this Country?

opo

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The bill has passed now. RIP justice.

Yeah.

RIP Organised Theft, Drug dealing Etc.

What a loss.

amacachi

opo wrote: »

Yeah.

RIP Organised Theft, Drug dealing Etc.

What a loss.

Funniest post I've read in a long time.

opo

amacachi wrote: »

Funniest post I've read in a long time.

Shhhh.

Moderators will want to move it to AH if they sniff a modicum of frivolity, much less humanity.

Taxipete29

opo wrote: »

Yeah.

RIP Organised Theft, Drug dealing Etc.

What a loss.

I am not a lawyer, so my understanding of its impacts comes from those whose opinions I respect and who have a far greater knowledge of the subject than I do. The following is the opinion of a poster from another forum on boards.

"1. It drastically alters the definition of "criminal organisation" to include any group of 3 or more persons who were not randomly formed for the commission of a single offence but who were formed with the purpose of committing an offence.

While this, at first, may seem reasonable on some level it is laden down with caveats and amendments. Even in the wording above, if you and 2 of your friends drive to buy some drugs (let's say marijuana) and you do so more than once you can, under this new legislation, be detained for 7 days questioning as a member of a "criminal organisation".

2. The Bill amends the Offences Against the State Acts. These abhorrent acts give rise to criminal trials without juries and excessive detention periods. This new Bill extends those periods as well as making more people liable to actions in the Special Criminal Court.

3. Gardai may apply to extend the detention period and hearsay evidence can be admitted in support of the extension. That is, a Garda can give evidence that he heard from someone else in support of his application to extend the detention. Furthermore, the lawfulness of the detention cannot be challenged at the extension hearing. An accused person must take a habeus corpus action instead.

There are others. All small little amendments that just give the Gardai more discretionary powers that they really should not get. If I get a chance I'll do a full run down of the Bill. Here it is by the way.

1. The DPP can forward an accused person to be tried by the Special Criminal Court but doesn't have to justify or give reasons for it to anyone.

2. The State can appoint military officers instead of judges. Just because custom has had judges appointed doesn't mean, if something ever occurred like a threat upon a judge, that the Govt. couldn't appoint any 3 military officers it wished to sit as the Special Criminal Court. They don't need any legal training whatsoever.

How many innocent people have to be held before the laws become arbitrary? Is every person questioned by the Gardai definitely guilty? Are the Gardai really that good?

Richard Jackson once wrote (although the quote is more often attributed to Benjamin Franklin - in my opinion incorrectly) that:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Saying "I have nothing to fear because I am a law abiding citizen" is missing the point. It is when the Government or their agents begin to use these powers against ordinary citizens and we can't stop them because it is legal that the problems arise. Remember that the Gardai don't exactly have a sterling record in this area. I was, and remain, a stauch advocate of the great work that the Gardai do but the powers which they are increasingly getting, combined with the remarkable reduction in due process in Irish courts over the last number of years, is really quite frightening.

The most basic example I can give you is this. Many people believe that the criminal justice system favours the criminal rather than the victim. This is not true. It does favour the accused in some respects. Classifying someone as a criminal before they are convicted is indicative of a dangerous mindset within Irish society that sees "scumbags" as equating with "criminal".

History is littered with examples of the State over-reaching its remit and giving itself excessive and draconian powers in response to an "imminent threat" from "subversives". I really hope Ireland does not walk the same path."

Mr.Micro

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Saying "I have nothing to fear because I am a law abiding citizen" is missing the point. It is when the Government or their agents begin to use these powers against ordinary citizens and we can't stop them because it is legal that the problems arise. Remember that the Gardai don't exactly have a sterling record in this area. I was, and remain, a stauch advocate of the great work that the Gardai do but the powers which they are increasingly getting, combined with the remarkable reduction in due process in Irish courts over the last number of years, is really quite frightening.

The most basic example I can give you is this. Many people believe that the criminal justice system favours the criminal rather than the victim. This is not true. It does favour the accused in some respects. Classifying someone as a criminal before they are convicted is indicative of a dangerous mindset within Irish society that sees "scumbags" as equating with "criminal".

History is littered with examples of the State over-reaching its remit and giving itself excessive and draconian powers in response to an "imminent threat" from "subversives". I really hope Ireland does not walk the same path."

I agree, all those trusting people that believe that the state will always be right as they have nothing to fear as law abiding people. Once a law is enforced the it can be extended to other areas of society. Innocent until proven guilty, but now point the finger at the gangs and a pet judge, and hey presto a conviction. Might as well just round up all the suspicious characters now ( bar the politicians local and national of course ).

bernardo mac

I'm not a legal expert either and like the majority of the citizens rely on the courts,its judges,lawyers,solicitors and the gardai to ensure our rights[to life,freedom etc] are protected and I respect these guardians of the law of this state and like Taxipete29, I am wary of the new legislation,but I have lost all faith in the power of the courts to deliver appropriate and deterring sentences.The outcome of the recent trials of Campion and Cawley, considering concurrent sentencing and remission,ensures both will be on our streets in 10 to15 years.The future of this state and its law abiding citizens is bleak,not just in an economic sense

Wheely

bernardo mac wrote: »

I'm not a legal expert either and like the majority of the citizens rely on the courts,its judges,lawyers,solicitors and the gardai to ensure our rights[to life,freedom etc] are protected and I respect these guardians of the law of this state and like Taxipete29, I am wary of the new legislation,but I have lost all faith in the power of the courts to deliver appropriate and deterring sentences.The outcome of the recent trials of Campion and Cawley, considering concurrent sentencing and remission,ensures both will be on our streets in 10 to15 years.The future of this state and its law abiding citizens is bleak,not just in an economic sense

Its off-topic but severity of sentence is a minority factor in terms of deterrence, predominant deterrent to those planning to commit a crime is probability of detection. I.E those planning a robbery/murder/rape don't look up the latest sentencing trends and say, ah well it's only 5/10/15 years, what the hell if I get caught.

You'd think most people could figure that out by using common sense but the tabloid presses insistence that harsh sentences act as a deterrent seems to have burned itself into the consciousness of the public psyche.

Wheely

Sand wrote: »

Its not perfect but I dont see jackboots being added to the Garda uniform either. I imagine the impact of the bill will be underwhelming, for all sides. Scumbags will still be on the streets. Random people wont be picked up and locked away for 20 years because they give a Garda a dirty look.

Fair enough. Until they pass a bill adding jackboots to the Garda uniform I guess we should just keep shtum. It's far from perfect, it's a bad bill. Opposition to is more than welcome imo.

jonsnow

opo wrote: »

Yeah.

RIP Organised Theft, Drug dealing Etc.

What a loss.

yeah you,re right organised crime and drug dealing are about to be dealt an earthshattering blow by this legislation.I,m sure criminals up and down the country are quaking in their boots today.This well thought out legislation was definitly worth giving up jury trials for and wasn,t a political stroke by Fianna Fail at all to get the tabloids off their backs and appear to be "doing something".

jonsnow

Sand wrote: »

Its not perfect but I dont see jackboots being added to the Garda uniform either..

I don,t think the heavy gang,the guards who fitted up Dean Lyons or the Donegal Gardai behind Morris wore jackboots either.They didn,t need them to abuse their power apparently.

jonsnow

All of those comments about criminal defence lawyers being bent out of shape because they,re going to lose some fees are ridiculous.The criminal defence lawyers-the few really good ones-get all the business thats going and will continue to get it regardless of this bill.It was Dermot Ahern a solicitor by trade who brought in this bill and its not going to hit anyones pockets.If Fianna Fail were too gutless under Cowen to halve the ridicolous daily salaries being paid to a handful of Tribunal Barristers they,re certainly not going to upset the applecart with this Bill.So your joy at the legal beaks discomfort is misplaced.

Even if one generation of crims are put behind bars there is always another one in waiting ready to take the crown.Given that this is the reality maybe some of our respected criminal defence lawyers and prosecutors felt that shredding our civil liberties for such a shoddy piece of legislation might not be the best idea.

I wouldn,t worry about it too much though.This legislation will never withstand any sustained challenge to the S.C. or the E.C.H.R. -where the lawyers will make a fortune through the appeals process!!!!

bernardo mac

Not that much off topic:leading lawyers and solicitors would probably agree that consecutive sentencing would safeguard the public from hopelessly habitual and psychopathic criminals.Consideration must be foremost too for the family of the victims,the sacredness of human life and the gravity of the offence and this should be reflected in the severity of sentence.Objectors to the new laws must address what is perceived to be,by the public, in many cases,inadequate sentencing.And this is not emotional reaction to an event or what a tabloid might print,this is common sense and wisdom of those law abiding citizens who are living on the frontline in Dublin,Limerick etc.The criminal gangs,the individual thugs and would be thugs should be made clearly aware of the fact in law that civilised society has had enough.Let that be a deterrent along with the carefully monitored new legislation

MysticalRain

All I know is that you never see these fatcat lawyers standing up for the common man in the street. They are not the ones who have to live in fear from these scumbags.

Sand

Fair enough. Until they pass a bill adding jackboots to the Garda uniform I guess we should just keep shtum. It's far from perfect, it's a bad bill. Opposition to is more than welcome imo.

Sensationalism to be honest. Non Jury courts have been successfully used in a restrained fashion to beat down the Provos and other subversives criminals. At worst this is merely a recognition of a new generation of subversive criminal organisations. The natural of criminal organisations is changing - they are more organised, more heavily armed, and far more dangerous both to ordinary citizens and Gardai themselves. Trying to combat them within a system designed for apple thieves and parking fines isnt working.

Despite the hollering and hooping Gardai will not be convicting anyone based on their word alone.

Lawyers are going to be upset of course, especially Limerick and Dublin lawyers, because they want their pay from their clients. If their clients are in jail and not out committing crimes, they are not going to need their lawyers to defend them multiple times.

I don,t think the heavy gang,the guards who fitted up Dean Lyons or the Donegal Gardai behind Morris wore jackboots either.They didn,t need them to abuse their power apparently.

Yes, yes - clearly seeing as there are one or two cases of Gardai misbehaviour we cannot trust the Gardai with any authority or power. In fact, we might as well not bother with a system of laws. How can we trust the Gardai to enforce them or investigate crimes at all?

Really, read this bill. The first Garda who tries to explain why his opinion should be taken as evidence because hes got X amount of experience or knowledge is going to need very thick skin because the lawyers and judges in the court are going to enjoy painting him (or her) as an incompetent walter mitty who couldnt find their own ass with a map and a flashlight.

Very few Gardai will be lining up for that.

lostexpectation

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/jul/12/labour-td-defends-his-gut-feeling-in-defying-party/

However, pressed further, the Dublin North-East deputy said that having finally had a chance to study the bill closely on Thursday night

ah yes one night study on such significant bill.

"We need to get away from the Westminister model and have a genuine input from TDs rather than [legislation by] diktat from government."

huh

jonsnow

Sand wrote: »

Sensationalism to be honest. Non Jury courts have been successfully used in a restrained fashion to beat down the Provos and other subversives criminals.

Yeah well short of the Gestapo turning up you seem to think that any adverse comment directed at this bill is "sensationalist".Civil rights in a democracy usually aren,t curtailed in some dramatic overnight coup they are gradually eroded.This bill erodes everyones right to a jury trial-thats an important safeguard to give up.

Non-jury trials weren,t "used in a restrained fashion".Instead they were heavily criticised by Human rights organisations and by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.They also resulted in miscarriages of justice most famously in the case of Nicky Kelly, who was convicted by the Special Criminal Court in 1978 of carrying out the Sallins Train Robbery.His conviction were later overturned after it was found that the suspects had been assaulted or "beaten down" by Gardai while in custody.He recieved a Presidential pardon.

Sand wrote: »

At worst this is merely a recognition of a new generation of subversive criminal organisations. The natural of criminal organisations is changing - they are more organised, more heavily armed, and far more dangerous both to ordinary citizens and Gardai themselves. Trying to combat them within a system designed for apple thieves and parking fines isnt working.

Give me a break.Criminal gangs of this nature have been operating in other jurisdictions for 80 years without the need for them to scrap jury trials.Just because Ireland had a historically low crime rate and we now have the type of organised crime gangs operating that have blighted the rest of Western Europe for decades doesn,t mean that we should curtail our civil rights in order to tackle them.We have a raft of anti-gang legislation on the books let the gardai use some of that effectively first.Despite all the hyperbole these gangs do not pose a threat to the integrity of the State in the manner of the Mafia in Italy.Far hardier and more sophisticated criminal networks have been taken down using traditional law enforcement tools in other jurisdictions.

Sand wrote: »

Lawyers are going to be upset of course, especially Limerick and Dublin lawyers, because they want their pay from their clients. If their clients are in jail and not out committing crimes, they are not going to need their lawyers to defend them multiple times.

Firstly, why would prosecutors come out against this bill.Surely its in their career interests to rack up more convictions!!!
Secondly, criminal defence lawyers aren,t going to be upset.They are going to make a fortune appealing against their clients convictions.Then if that fails they are going to represent the next generation that have taken over on the street and so on and so on.

Sand wrote: »

Yes, yes - clearly seeing as there are one or two cases of Gardai misbehaviour we cannot trust the Gardai with any authority or power. In fact, we might as well not bother with a system of laws. How can we trust the Gardai to enforce them or investigate crimes at all?

Yeah a few bad apples .Its not like we had to hold a Tribunal to get to the bottom of systemic wrongdoing where the tribunal was "staggered by the amount of indiscipline and insubordination it has found in the Garda force" and the government had to appoint an ombudsman,an Inspectorate and a new code of discipline.Yeah lets give that force the most wideranging powers in europe based on their word.

Sand wrote: »

Really, read this bill. The first Garda who tries to explain why his opinion should be taken as evidence because hes got X amount of experience or knowledge is going to need very thick skin because the lawyers and judges in the court are going to enjoy painting him (or her) as an incompetent walter mitty who couldnt find their own ass with a map and a flashlight.

Very few Gardai will be lining up for that.

I have.Are all those tough gangbusting guards going to be so terrified of being asked a few questions by defence lawyers(can,t see why any judges would want to paint the guards as incompetent walter mitty types).I don,t think so.