Handcuffed in court

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.