Handcuffed in court

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

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!

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!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Excellent arguments on both sides here, my brain aligns me with johnnyskeletons reasoning but my heart puts me on the other side.

The first reaction is to think that these who are so organised and violent within their criminal activities fall under the remit of the SCC. But as js rightly pointed out what extra protection is there in depriving them of a jury when it may be much easier to intimidate three judges.

My question to those who know more than I however that in the event of conviction(s), is there a likely of these being overturned on appeals on a constitutional, european and international level on the grounds of deprivation of a fair trial?

johnnyskeleton

Anabelle Low Ketchup wrote: »

The first reaction is to think that these who are so organised and violent within their criminal activities fall under the remit of the SCC. But as js rightly pointed out what extra protection is there in depriving them of a jury when it may be much easier to intimidate three judges.

It's not like we are lacking in good gardai - we have some detectives who, when they have set their minds to it have brought home convictions against some of the most successful criminals in Ireland. The idea that there are untouchable gangsters belongs in the pages of Paul Williams. As an aside, many of them are killed before they can get to trial but such is life.

However, this new bill is, if anything, offensive to the gardai, or at least to those gardai who do take the time to gather evidence and such things. I have to assume that the gardai who are in support of this new bill are the ones who are not able to put together such cases. It means that, instead of the difficult and expensive policework that ensures that no one can be convicted unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we will have people being convicted on a garda's say so. Obviously the first few cases will have some circumstantial evidence, but after that it's open season for any personal vendetta.

Anabelle Low Ketchup wrote: »

My question to those who know more than I however that in the event of conviction(s), is there a likely of these being overturned on appeals on a constitutional, european and international level on the grounds of deprivation of a fair trial?

Appeals to the CCA are only concerned with the conduct of the trial or, in very rare cases, new exculpatory evidence which has only come to light post conviction.

As for constitutional, until the SCC is disbanded, there will be increasing pressure on the High Court and Supreme Court to hold that it is unconstitutional. It doesn't look like the challenges to the SCC under the Offences Against the State Acts are going to be upheld any time soon, but there are a couple of sneaky points as regards the new act which might hold a bit of water.

More likely, it would be other aspects of the new act rather than the lack of a jury which would be challenged.

As for Europe, unfortunately most of Europe doesn't have jury trials anyway, so defence of our system tends to fall on deaf ears. However, the fact that certain people are singled out for non jury trials might have an interesting dimension in the ECHR.

Bosco boy

It's very simple so johnny just get the few good detectives we have (according to you) to put their minds to it and we'll get convictions, and that should be easy because no one is ever intimidated by these poor unfortunates who get free legal aid and never abuse the system. People said the same crap about CAB and it's recognised world wide as being a great sucess, have faith in the legal profession after all the legislation originated from the legal profession and was rubber stamped by the AG.

johnnyskeleton

Bosco boy wrote: »

It's very simple so johnny just get the few good detectives we have (according to you) to put their minds to it and we'll get convictions, and that should be easy because no one is ever intimidated by these poor unfortunates who get free legal aid and never abuse the system.

First, there is no proof of any juries being intimidated that I can see.

Second, if the choice is to allow citizens to "abuse the system" or to allow the state to "abuse the system", it has to be the citizen, every time.

But even still, there are much less restrictive ways of dealing with any intimidation of jurors.

Bosco boy wrote: »

People said the same crap about CAB and it's recognised world wide as being a great sucess,

Link? Ireland is one of the more recent countries to adopt asset forfeiture legislation, and I don't think ours is particularly strong or fair. So who exactly is recognising CAB as a great success outside of Ireland?

Bosco boy wrote: »

have faith in the legal profession after all the legislation originated from the legal profession and was rubber stamped by the AG.

Rather place my faith in a system that has developed over hundreds of years and has been proven to work rather than to shy away and give over fundamental freedoms to secure a temporary political goal.

Bosco boy

You have no examples of intimidation! Try the corridors of court houses and indeed some court rooms , I'm amazed you haven't seen it, it's not that long ago that a solicitor was assaulted within the confines of a court in the area where theses guys come from, even the few good detectives couldn't bring that to court, why do you think? No complaint and from an officer of the court, get real!

_JOE_

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

First, there is no proof of any juries being intimidated that I can see.

I agree with a lot of what you say JS, but the above i cannot.

I will not go into the details other than to say that it does happen.

johnnyskeleton

_JOE_ wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say JS, but the above i cannot.

I will not go into the details other than to say that it does happen.

We're not talking about things that happen in private where a witness doesn't want to come forward. Can you give one concrete example of a trial which couldn't get a jury or a trial collapsing or even a bizzare acquittal due to imtimidation?

Such things would make national news.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

First, there is no proof of any juries being intimidated that I can see.

Wasn't someone found with the names and addresses of a jury?

johnnyskeleton

Bosco boy wrote: »

You have no examples of intimidation! Try the corridors of court houses and indeed some court rooms , I'm amazed you haven't seen it, it's not that long ago that a solicitor was assaulted within the confines of a court in the area where theses guys come from, even the few good detectives couldn't bring that to court, why do you think? No complaint and from an officer of the court, get real!

If only they'd known the law - a complaint does not have to be made to prosecute an assault.

Victor, it is common to give the names and occupations of the jury pannel to the accuseds legal team, but only on the day of trial. Again, in a case where there is suspected intimidation, this could be withheld and the jury could be kept in a hotel for the whole trial. This costs money, but it is better than eroding rights in order to save a few bob if jury intimidation is the REAL issue, but it's not - it's a way of potting a few undesireables for political reasons. Great for the old tough on crime talk, not so great for the old battered bit of democracy we have left.

Bosco boy

johnny - Your presuming it was witnessed by gardai or maybe you think witnesses are not required, then democracy is at stake, make up your mind! How many examples do you need, with out mentioning names didn't some guy walk free from a murder charge due to witnesses not giving evidence and then gave two fingers to the tv cameras outside, but hey as you say there is no intimidation

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or maybe those posters who thanked his post would care to share their wisdom that I seem so clearly to be lacking.

Ok....;)

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But - apart from any perceived risk - there hasn't been established any actual risk to judges or jurors..

A GS superintendent has stated that some personal details of potential jury members were discovered in the home of an associate of the accused. In the Uk, a number of trials have collapsed following juror intimidation. The anecdotal evidence i hear around the profession seems to suggest that it is a real issue. I dont disbelieve those involved in the area who have told me. But in any case, should we wait until a juror here is intimidated, or asssaulted or worse before we take action?

Ultimately this is a matter of how sacrosant we as a society believe a jury trial to be. If it is an absolute, and no threat however grave to the public/society warrants the dilution of that principle, then your position is perfectly reasonable. Personally, I do not believe a jury trial to be an absolute. If the threat to society is sufficiently great, or if the possible risks (ie. intimidation - even perceived) are sufficiently grave, I have no problem whatsoever in suspending the right to jury trial. The risks posed to the individual and to society by organised crime is one example of where i have litttle concern in removing jury trials, even if we have had no proven cases of jury intimidation. The potential and the possibility of such occurring is enough for me to satisfy myself that the greater good is in removing them.

I feel similarly as regards certain areas where a jury may not be fit for purpose (ie. complex financial fraud cases). The reverence with which jurys are held often baffles me - ive never been on one but from the anecdotes i have heard, in addition to seeing them being selected & sworn, I dont have the ultimate faith in them that some do. We got rid of them for most civil proceedings and the world didnt cave in.

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This costs money, but it is better than eroding rights in order to save a few bob if jury intimidation is the REAL issue, but it's not - it's a way of potting a few undesireables for political reasons. Great for the old tough on crime talk, not so great for the old battered bit of democracy we have left.

Democracy often equates to the tyranny of the majority for certain minorities. Politicians speak of being tough on crime, get elected on that basis, and carry out their pre election promises.

Democracy failing is thugs infiltrating the government, judiciary or they running neighbourhoods or even cities.