Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Handcuffed in court

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    That's a fairly chilling attitude. So the government decides who is going to be convicted, and if they cannot get them under the law as it stands they introduce new legislation to put them away on. Where does that end?

    I said (and you quoted me) that it is an obnoxious piece of legislation. However the alternative is possibly a threat the fabric of the state with people in various parts of the country being subservient to thugs rather than the criminal justice system.


  • Options
    #33
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    maidhc wrote: »
    I said (and you quoted me) that it is an obnoxious piece of legislation. However the alternative is possibly a threat the fabric of the state with people in various parts of the country being subservient to thugs rather than the criminal justice system.

    Or they could just spend more resources on increased investigations, surveilance and witness protection.


  • Options
    #34
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Or they could just spend more resources on increased investigations, surveilance and witness protection.

    I agree in the abstract, but I think given where we stand financially as well as given the urgency of the issue last year what they did was the only feasible option IMO.


  • Options
    #35
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    I think that there is no hope that these guys will get a fair trial.

    Yes, they are all scumbags but non-jury trials in criminal cases is a worrying development.


  • Options
    #36
    Bosco boy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭Bosco boy


    mike kelly wrote: »
    I think that there is no hope that these guys will get a fair trial.

    Yes, they are all scumbags but non-jury trials in criminal cases is a worrying development.

    if they were'nt intimidating juries and witnesses, they would have a jury, I think its a little disrespectful to the justice system to suggest that the 3 judges sitting in the special criminal court won't give them a fair trial. they can always appeal if they feel they have been wronged and have a case! they are just being denied the opportunity to intimidate a jury!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Bosco boy wrote: »
    if they were'nt intimidating juries and witnesses, they would have a jury, I think its a little disrespectful to the justice system to suggest that the 3 judges sitting in the special criminal court won't give them a fair trial. they can always appeal if they feel they have been wronged and have a case! they are just being denied the opportunity to intimidate a jury!

    Were they intimidating juries though? I don't think there is any evidence of someone who was unable to have a jury trial because of juror intimidation. In any event, to solve that they can hear the case in or outside of Dublin depending on where the person isn't from.

    Witness intimidation is not cured by a non jury trial.

    I don't think it is disrespectful to say that, in fact I think it is a gross disrespect to our system of democracy and one of the fundamental rights of a fair trial in our country to get rid of jury trials.


  • Options
    #38
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Non-juries are rare and the DPP doesnt consent to them lightly. You can be sure it was the correct thing to do in this instance. These individuals have and will use any means to "get at" juriors. Dogs on the street know what these individuals are capable of and ordinary people are reluctant to serve on such trials involving such people.


  • Options
    #39
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    McCrack wrote: »
    Non-juries are rare and the DPP doesnt consent to them lightly. You can be sure it was the correct thing to do in this instance. These individuals have and will use any means to "get at" juriors. Dogs on the street know what these individuals are capable of and ordinary people are reluctant to serve on such trials involving such people.

    I think it is very naive to suggest that it is easier to intimidate a juror than to intimidate a judge. Have you studied the Brian Fitzgerald murder trial from a few years back where the judge directed that John and Dessie be found innocent? Highly suspicious, surely


  • Options
    #40
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    Bosco boy wrote: »
    if they were'nt intimidating juries and witnesses, they would have a jury, I think its a little disrespectful to the justice system to suggest that the 3 judges sitting in the special criminal court won't give them a fair trial. they can always appeal if they feel they have been wronged and have a case! they are just being denied the opportunity to intimidate a jury!

    Gardai wearing balaclavas is the next step


  • Options
    #41
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    McCrack wrote: »
    Non-juries are rare and the DPP doesnt consent to them lightly.

    Just like we were told, prior to the passing of the Sex Offences Act, 2006, that there doesn't need to be a romeo and juliet clause because the DPP would never prosecute in circumstances where the two children were of similar age, yet just over a year later he prosecuted a 15 year old boy for having sexual intercourse with a 14 year old girl. I'm sure that's not the only case either.
    McCrack wrote: »
    You can be sure it was the correct thing to do in this instance.

    Why? I know nothing about the case other than is what is in the papers, and I don't believe in trial by media.
    McCrack wrote: »
    These individuals have and will use any means to "get at" juriors.

    These people? If you mean people from Limerick then you are racist (or countyist) and if you mean criminals then you have just expressed contempt for the presumption of innocence.

    But do you have any proof that the individuals in question have and will use any means to "get at" jurors?
    McCrack wrote: »
    Dogs on the street know what these individuals are capable of and ordinary people are reluctant to serve on such trials involving such people.

    Ordinary people are reluctant to sit on any jury. But yet they do. Are there instances of cases where someone could not get a jury trial because jurors were afraid to sit on the case? If so, then a much fairer system would be to return a person to a normal court, and if a jury cannot be obtained in, say, 3 tries, the Judge can certify that it is one for the SCC and can send it across.

    There is nothing in these arguments other than supposition. But it would be much more honest if you were to give the real reasons for these trials - that 3 judges are much more likely to convict than 12 ordinary citizens, honest and true, all other things being equal.

    Finally, have you thought about this: surely it is much harder to intimidate 12 people who are unknown to you until the day of the trial (or indeed who could never be known to you with special anonymity rules) than it is to intimidate 3 judges who you can find out will be sitting in advance?

    I have no problem with a non jury trial in any case in which it can be proven that a jury trial is not possible due to intimidation. But it is yet another way in which the Oireachtas erodes the right to a jury trial.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭McCrack


    mike kelly wrote: »
    I think it is very naive to suggest that it is easier to intimidate a juror than to intimidate a judge. Have you studied the Brian Fitzgerald murder trial from a few years back where the judge directed that John and Dessie be found innocent? Highly suspicious, surely

    I am aware of that case as it was high profile. I'm not privy to the legal argument advanced by the respective Counsels and the Judges decision based on that simply because I wasnt there. If you can enlighten me to the legal issues surrounding the direction I could maybe comment.

    Peter Charlton (the Judge) has been working in the criminal justice system for a very very long time and has prosecuted worse people then these guys.

    Judge ordered aquittals do happen but there must be sound legal basis for it, otherwise the DPP would kick up.


  • Options
    #43
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 21,040 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    psni wrote: »
    Just reading this story in The Indo and I notice that they were all handcuffed in court.

    This could be ignorance of Irish law on my part, but is this shaky legal ground? Is the accused person not supposed to be presented to the judge as innocent until he decides they are guilty? Is it enough to say that they weren't cooperating with prison officers yesterday, so we're handcuffing them in court today?

    I'm thinking Human Rights breaches will be alleged for this.

    Comments?
    A friend of mine once accidently missed a court date for a drink driving offence, a bench warrant was issued and he was brought to court in cuffs.


  • Options
    #44
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    A friend of mine once accidently missed a court date for a drink driving offence, a bench warrant was issued and he was brought to court in cuffs.

    your friend is obviously a danger to society and deserves the death penalty


  • Options
    #45
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    McCrack wrote: »
    I am aware of that case as it was high profile. I'm not privy to the legal argument advanced by the respective Counsels and the Judges decision based on that simply because I wasnt there. If you can enlighten me to the legal issues surrounding the direction I could maybe comment.

    Peter Charlton (the Judge) has been working in the criminal justice system for a very very long time and has prosecuted worse people then these guys.

    Judge ordered aquittals do happen but there must be sound legal basis for it, otherwise the DPP would kick up.

    here is why , you think that is sufficent reason to order an acquittal?


  • Options
    #46
    testicle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,430 ✭✭✭testicle


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    All humans have rights, including the right to a fair trial. Take that away from one person and you will eventually take it away from everyone.

    They are not human.


  • Options
    #47
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    These people? If you mean people from Limerick then you are racist (or countyist)

    "these people" claim to belong to a certain ethnic group, take a guess which one.


  • Options
    #48
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭McCrack


    I think you're living in the clouds Johnny.

    Sometimes academic lawyers need to come away from the textbook understanding of issues and develop an appreciation for reality.


  • Options
    #49
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    McCrack wrote: »
    I think you're living in the clouds Johnny.

    Sometimes academic lawyers need to come away from the textbook understanding of issues and develop an appreciation for reality.

    the problem here is political not legal. The state has lost control over much of Limerick but won't admit it.


  • Options
    #50
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭McCrack


    mike kelly wrote: »
    here is why , you think that is sufficent reason to order an acquittal?

    Thats an extract from a newspaper. I would need to see the transcript of the Trial to make any sort of informed opinion.

    On the face of it I can't see that the Judge erred.


  • Options
    #51
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    McCrack wrote: »
    I think you're living in the clouds Johnny.

    Sometimes academic lawyers need to come away from the textbook understanding of issues and develop an appreciation for reality.

    Can you reply to what I posted or are you just going to make ad hominem (and possibly unsubstantiated) attacks on me?

    1) are we right to put our faith in the DPP when the last time the Government passed a dodgy law on the basis that the DPP wouldn't use it badly, he failed?

    2) you seem sure of this case from what you read in the papers, but refuse to comment on the other case without knowing exactly what was said in that trial? Can you explain this apparent inconsistency in your views?

    3) Again, do you have any proof of jury intimidation in Ireland?

    4) Can you point to an instance where a jury trial could not be run because of jury intimidation?

    4a) What is wrong with a less draconian way of assisting juries, such as anonymity, or only certifying for a non jury trial after it has been proven that there is no realistic possibility of a jury trial due to intimidation?

    4b) can you please explain why you think three known judges are less likely to be intimidated than 12 unknown citizens?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    McCrack wrote: »
    Thats an extract from a newspaper. I would need to see the transcript of the Trial to make any sort of informed opinion.

    On the face of it I can't see that the Judge erred.

    he didn't err, he fu&%e# up


  • Options
    #53
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    4b) can you please explain why you think three known judges are less likely to be intimidated than 12 unknown citizens?

    This bit is easy. The three judges have garda drivers, and are much easier to mind. Also they are more cognisant of the dangers and most likely are happy with the risks.

    12 ordinary people just want to go home and have more desire in living their lives than "seeing justice to be served".
    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    3) Again, do you have any proof of jury intimidation in Ireland?
    Do we need proof? I for one am happy to assume certain members of society wouldn't blink at intimidating a jury. It isn't an unreasonable assumption given the track records. As it happens though intimidating a witness has heretofore fared better in cost/benefit analysis.

    We have had non jury criminal courts for years, and they were used for trying people with arguably far loftier goals than the current crop of thugs. The procedure under CAB is hardly the epitome of due processes, but you know what they say about making omelettes!


  • Options
    #54
    Bosco boy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭Bosco boy


    mike kelly wrote: »
    the problem here is political not legal. The state has lost control over much of Limerick but won't admit it.[/

    excellent work has been done in Limerick by the local gardai and eru , you'd know that if you had a clue about what your taking about, your bleeding heart approch would really solve the problem, come into the real world!!!!


  • Options
    #55
    neris
    Registered Users Posts: 20,054 ✭✭✭✭neris


    who cares if they were handcuffed. their just scum. if they had any respect they would not have spoken to the court the way they did.


  • Options
    #56
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,423 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    That's a fairly chilling attitude. So the government decides who is going to be convicted, and if they cannot get them under the law as it stands they introduce new legislation to put them away on. Where does that end?
    But isn't that how democracy works?

    Implement an act, see how it goes, if there is a perceived or actual problem, revise the act. thats what happens whether its the local bye-laws or the Hanging and Quartering Act.


  • Options
    #57
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    Victor wrote: »
    But isn't that how democracy works?

    Implement an act, see how it goes, if there is a perceived or actual problem, revise the act. thats what happens whether its the local bye-laws or the Hanging and Quartering Act.

    no, there are basic human rights which must be respected. Hitler was democratically elected and look how that turned out.


  • Options
    #58
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    mike kelly wrote: »
    no, there are basic human rights which must be respected. Hitler was democratically elected and look how that turned out.

    Ah come on. You can't compare genocide to the legislature taking a few short cuts with civil liberties.

    While short cuts with civil liberties should be deplored, there was a situation where the state was actually in danger of loosing control of one of the largest cities in the country. I think the path chosen was infinitely better than imposing martial law. And if the local boyscouts or ICA do get convicted of being members of a gang, we are lucky enough to have a free and open society where the law will be amended or changed, and boyscouts or housewives won't rot in jail.


  • Options
    #59
    mike kelly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭mike kelly


    Hitler started out by reducing the cvil liberties of Communists, as they were a threat to society and wanted to overturn democracy (which they did). Then, little by little...


  • Options
    #60
    Bosco boy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭Bosco boy


    mike kelly wrote: »
    Hitler started out by reducing the cvil liberties of Communists, as they were a threat to society and wanted to overturn democracy (which they did). Then, little by little...

    We could also go the route of Italy where mafia gangs were allowed to flourish and ran governments or we can take them on, someone said earlier you have to crack eggs to make an omlette and I agree but to equate this law to the hitler era is a joke and one for the conspiricy theory forum, have more faith in your judges and courts who are independant of politicans.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    maidhc wrote: »
    This bit is easy. The three judges have garda drivers, and are much easier to mind.

    This is what I can't square in my head. These people who threaten to destroy the very fabric of our society with their violence will be put off by a single garda driver for each judge?

    They may be much easier to mind during trial (although having a jury in one place with several gardai must surely be even easier still, albeit more expensive because of hotels etc).

    Don't forget as well that judges don't get 24/7 garda protection, and most of the time have only a tipstaff/crier to assist them (and the DJ will have neither). So a judge could still be gotten to. Certainly, they could be said to be easier to get to given that they are public figures.
    maidhc wrote: »
    Also they are more cognisant of the dangers and most likely are happy with the risks.

    12 ordinary people just want to go home and have more desire in living their lives than "seeing justice to be served".

    But - apart from any perceived risk - there hasn't been established any actual risk to judges or jurors. Have there been any instances of jurors saying they don't want to sit on a jury because they don't want to take the risk?

    Of course 12 ordinary people would rather be at home, but that's true of all trials. It's a civic duty and they are required to do it. It is necessary in our society in order to secure fair trials, and so honest citizens good and true are obliged to do jury service.
    maidhc wrote: »
    Do we need proof? I for one am happy to assume certain members of society wouldn't blink at intimidating a jury. It isn't an unreasonable assumption given the track records.

    Why not presumption of guilt then, since you are happy to assume that they will do all sorts of bad things?
    maidhc wrote: »
    As it happens though intimidating a witness has heretofore fared better in cost/benefit analysis.

    And that will not change if there is no jury. But in any event the perception of widespread witness intimidation has led to the introduction of s.16. But this leads to the assumption that the witness was intimidated. Very often, the witness made a genuine mistake and later realised it. Or they lied. Or the Gardai cajoled them into making an untrue statement. But yet, the way that they can say to a jury, look, this bad man has intimidated that poor poor witness so much that they are retracting their statement. however, here's the statement and it's true. Isn't the accused such a bad man?
    maidhc wrote: »
    We have had non jury criminal courts for years, and they were used for trying people with arguably far loftier goals than the current crop of thugs.

    And that's terrible, but rather than getting rid of it, we extend those powers. Don't forget, in fact we as a people should never forget, that when the SCC was brought in it was described as a temporary measure that would eventually be phased out. Now it's not only here to stay, but it's going to become the norm. Soon too it will be fraud cases which in the opinion of the DPP honest citizens are apparently too stupid to understand. Then it's bye bye jury.

    There are some judges who are famed for convicting everyone, even when there is absolutely no evidence of guilt. While jurys are by no means perfect, they will usually do what they think is right.
    maidhc wrote: »
    The procedure under CAB is hardly the epitome of due processes, but you know what they say about making omelettes!

    That the end justifys the means, once it is you who eats the omlette?
    Victor wrote: »
    But isn't that how democracy works?

    Implement an act, see how it goes, if there is a perceived or actual problem, revise the act. thats what happens whether its the local bye-laws or the Hanging and Quartering Act.

    No. Democracy works by seeing a percieved wrong act and prohibiting that act. Not by saying, listen, we have to get rid of this crowd, let's do em on the sneak because we can get them bang to rights.

    In a democracy, everyone is equal before the law, and you can't have fair trials for some people and unfair trials for others, or at least if you are going to have a special procedure for some people, it must be justified rather than based on "ah come on they're all scumbags"

    Still waiting for McCrack to explain to me how I am living in the clouds. You know, purely so I can see how real people live. Or maybe those posters who thanked his post would care to share their wisdom that I seem so clearly to be lacking.


Advertisement