Wrongful conviction / miscarriage of justice

Finnbar01

pirelli wrote: »

He did you proud Finnbar01.

He did indeed pirelli.

I just want to be absolutely clear though. I do most certainly believe in co operating and working with the gardaí. If I witness a crime, I would have no problem giving a statement.

However, if I found myself in the same position as Irishh bob, they may sing for it.

At the end of the day the whole questioning process is not in your favour, it is inherently biased against you.

MagicSean

irishh_bob wrote: »

i did give my side , i recieved a phone call from the local seargent , he informed me about the allegation , i told him i did not see the accuser in town and that im often under the same roof as people without being aware of thier presence , supermarkets , pubs , hardware stores

the seargent then asked me to drop into the station to make a statement , i declined , i then recieved a call one week later informing me that if i didnt drop in to answer questions , i would be arrested , when questioned about the incident , i reiterated my earlier disclosure about having visited an establishment to buy a food item and stated that i had nothing further to add , i saw no reason to answer questions about stuff that alledgedly happened six years previous and which has been dealt with already in a court of law , its unprofessional of a guard to rake over old ground , fine if they do it as a way of goading thier suspect into oppening up about other stuff but i wasnt dancing to thier tune

btw , i tell this story for the benefit of forum members who might be interested , i know from other posts that you unconditionally support the guards on every single issue , thier are none so blind as those who will not see

So you think they should have known his complaint was false despite the recorded history between the two of you and the supporting cctv evidence? As to the reason you were asked about the previous incidents, f the arrest was for the one incident you would have been arrested for making threats to kill. Harassment requires moe than one incident and so the previous incidents would also have to be put to you.

pirelli

irishh_bob wrote: »

perhaps , his motives are not of no interest to me , that the guards would so willingly shill for this mishief maker is more concerning , you dont arrest someone on suspicion of harrassment when your only evidence is cctv footage of the accused buying a bar of chocolate in a newsagents

thier are people up and down the country who are genuine victims of harrassment , who have toe rages egging thier houses , stuffing offensive through thier letter boxes and sitting on thier walls and the guards dont lift a finger for months on end , as i said earlier on , the gardai is riddled with politics in how it opperates , how willing they are to act often depends on who is doing the complaining

Would the CCTV completely vindicate you of making the threat to cut his throat? Would the CCTV in any way contradict his statement of events in which he accuses you of making said threat? Is the shop keeper any use as a witness? Were there potentially witnesses that can dispute his allegation?

Here it seems is an opportunity to punish the person that caused your miscarriage of justice, it is a criminal offence to give a false statement, never mind if the Garda are right or wrong to call it harassment; my point is...that it is an offence to threaten to kill someone. Therefore if you can prove your innocent then your potentially in a position to prosecute this guy under the 1976 criminal law act section 12. If he is guilty of this then perhaps you could use this as new evidence to get your previous conviction overturned.

You can appeal your conviction under the 1993 criminal procedure act if you have significant or newly discovered facts/evidence. You could try at least to see if it would be accepted as newly discovered.

Bullseye1

I really feel for you OP and it's a sad state of affairs that in a he said she said hat any judgement can be made. It's an even worse state of affairs when someone cannot afford to defend themselves in court. Why the hell are court costs so bloody high?

irishh_bob

MagicSean wrote: »

So you think they should have known his complaint was false despite the recorded history between the two of you and the supporting cctv evidence? As to the reason you were asked about the previous incidents, f the arrest was for the one incident you would have been arrested for making threats to kill. Harassment requires moe than one incident and so the previous incidents would also have to be put to you.

you really should educate yourself in theese matters , you end up looking foolish , either that or you just enjoy being obtuse , whatever , il let other posters and forum members draw thier own conclusions

you cannot be tried twice for something you have been convicted of several years previous , gardai might see a heightended reason to investiage based on passed events between two people but they have no valid reason to bring up those past events , that i was convicted of assaulting this guy in 2005 does not in anyway contribute to a harrassment case which extended no further than an allegation in 2011 of following someone into a shop and then making a gesture at them outside the shop

as for the details of my most recent arrest , cctv showed nothing only my entering a newsagents and buying a food item so your claim about supporting evidence is bogus unless you consider buying a mars bar to be a crime , thier was no footage of anything outside the store where my accuser alledges i made a gesture at him , i only wish thier had been as it would have completely vindicated me from the start , whether the guards thought his allegations were false or not is beside the point , thier wasnt a shred of evidence to support a harrassment charge , arresting me was a complete waste of resources

Finnbar01

irishh_bob wrote: »

you really should educate yourself in theese matters , you end up looking foolish , either that or you just enjoy being obtuse , whatever , il let other posters and forum members draw thier own conclusions

you cannot be tried twice for something you have been convicted of several years previous , gardai might see a heightended reason to investiage based on passed events between two people but they have no valid reason to bring up those past events , that i was convicted of assaulting this guy in 2005 does not in anyway contribute to a harrassment case which extended no further than an allegation in 2011 of following someone into a shop and then making a gesture at them outside the shop

as for the details of my most recent arrest , cctv showed nothing only my entering a newsagents and buying a food item so your claim about supporting evidence is bogus unless you consider buying a mars bar to be a crime , thier was no footage of anything outside the store where my accuser alledges i made a gesture at him , i only wish thier had been as it would have completely vindicated me from the start , whether the guards thought his allegations were false or not is beside the point , thier wasnt a shred of evidence to support a harrassment charge , arresting me was a complete waste of resources

Did the gardaí approach the shop keeper?

MagicSean

irishh_bob wrote: »

you really should educate yourself in theese matters , you end up looking foolish , either that or you just enjoy being obtuse , whatever , il let other posters and forum members draw thier own conclusions

Thanks for the advice. I think my education is fine.

irishh_bob wrote: »

you cannot be tried twice for something you have been convicted of several years previous , gardai might see a heightended reason to investiage based on passed events between two people but they have no valid reason to bring up those past events , that i was convicted of assaulting this guy in 2005 does not in anyway contribute to a harrassment case which extended no further than an allegation in 2011 of following someone into a shop and then making a gesture at them outside the shop

You cannot commit harassment in one incident. It requires a series of incidents.

irishh_bob wrote: »

as for the details of my most recent arrest , cctv showed nothing only my entering a newsagents and buying a food item so your claim about supporting evidence is bogus unless you consider buying a mars bar to be a crime , thier was no footage of anything outside the store where my accuser alledges i made a gesture at him , i only wish thier had been as it would have completely vindicated me from the start , whether the guards thought his allegations were false or not is beside the point , thier wasnt a shred of evidence to support a harrassment charge , arresting me was a complete waste of resources

The cctv supported his claim that you were both in the shop at the same time which would support a portion of his allegation and grant him credibility. Coupled with your previous conviction for assaulting the same man I would think that is plenty of evidence to warrant an investigation and the only way to investigate an incident where the suspect refuses to cooperate is to arrest them and question them.

irishh_bob

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Did the gardaí approach the shop keeper?

the gardai asked the shopkeeper for the cctv footage , extrordinary footage which showed me entering the shop four minutes after accuser , going to the corner of the shop and picking up a bar of chocolate and then to the fridge for a coke , it also showed my accuser leave the shop one minute before i did

how i know this is because the seargant showed me his own statement during the interview which confirmed what he had observed on the shops cctv

just to reiterate , i never saw sight nor sound of this guy on the day in question despite the fact that we both visited the same establishment

irishh_bob

MagicSean wrote: »

Thanks for the advice. I think my education is fine.



You cannot commit harassment in one incident. It requires a series of incidents.



The cctv supported his claim that you were both in the shop at the same time which would support a portion of his allegation and grant him credibility. Coupled with your previous conviction for assaulting the same man I would think that is plenty of evidence to warrant an investigation and the only way to investigate an incident where the suspect refuses to cooperate is to arrest them and question them.

if you cannot commit harrassment in one incident , why was i arrested on suspicion of harrassing someone based on one alledged incident , my previous conviction for assaulting this individual might raise awareness with the gardai when dealing with issues involving both of us but as i said in a previous post , you cannot take incidents from years ago ( which i have a conviction for ) and add them to a fresh case , assault in 2005 cannot become harrassment in 2011

as for the cctv footage of me being in the store , that might lend credibility to his story but it proves absolutley nothing in terms of the allegation that i made a gesture at him outside the store , no court would convict on such circumstantial evidence , the guards knew this but devoted resources to an arrest anyhow , a phone call to show they had made enquires was enough , the arrest was outrageously over the top

MagicSean

irishh_bob wrote: »

if you cannot commit harrassment in one incident , why was i arrested on suspicion of harrassing someone based on one alledged incident , my previous conviction for assaulting this individual might raise awareness with the gardai when dealing with issues involving both of us but as i said in a previous post , you cannot take incidents from years ago ( which i have a conviction for ) and add them to a fresh case , assault in 2005 cannot become harrassment in 2011

There's no limit on the span harassment can take. You were copnvicted of assault only. The other incidents from back then could still form part of the overall harassment.

irishh_bob wrote: »

as for the cctv footage of me being in the store , that might lend credibility to his story but it proves absolutley nothing in terms of the allegation that i made a gesture at him outside the store , no court would convict on such circumstantial evidence ,

That's why you were arrested. They had some evidence they wished to investigate and you wouldn't give your side of the story to refute the evidence they had.

irishh_bob wrote: »

the guards knew this but devoted resources to an arrest anyhow , a phone call to show they had made enquires was enough , the arrest was outrageously over the top

Enough for what?

irishh_bob

MagicSean wrote: »

There's no limit on the span harassment can take. You were copnvicted of assault only. The other incidents from back then could still form part of the overall harassment.



That's why you were arrested. They had some evidence they wished to investigate and you wouldn't give your side of the story to refute the evidence they had.



Enough for what?

i was never convicted , charged or investigaged for harrassing this individual before 2011 , if this individual happened to tell the guards i was harrassing him in 2003 for arguement sake , i never heard anything about it , you have a maximum of six months in which to decide to press charges against someone , after that , the guards cannot bring a case against the person you complain about

i gave my side of the story , the sgt rang me , i told him i was in town and in the store that day but didnt see the person in question , reitterated the same thing during my interview while under arrest , thier was nothing further to add

i dont mind sharing this info , this forum thread is free for all to see but i think you should at least look at the details from an objective legal standpoint , much as it pains you to edge away from your hang em and flog em philosophy , it gets tedious having to explain basic stuff over and over

police recieve complaints all the time , police are often sure of someones guilt but without concrete evidence , they dont go to the trouble of arresting people when the chances of a summons and prosecution being brought are zero , its called dealing in reality , a guard might get some petty buzz out of arresting someone but if they have zilch to go on , its a bit silly and dont bang on again about the cctv footage of me in the shop , larry murphy since he was relased , is probably on cctv visting any amount of shops arround the country yet the cops know that without evidence for any allegation of wrongdoing , they are wasting thier time pursuing matters even for someone as notorious as him

your not an idiot , you live in the real world , stop being obnoxiously obtuse about what is basic police stuff

MagicSean

irishh_bob wrote: »

i was never convicted , charged or investigaged for harrassing this individual before 2011 , if this individual happened to tell the guards i was harrassing him in 2003 for arguement sake , i never heard anything about it , you have a maximum of six months in which to decide to press charges against someone , after that , the guards cannot bring a case against the person you complain about

You said he had made a number of complaints against you in the past and you were asked about all this in your interview. That's what I was referring to as the elements of the harassment.

irishh_bob wrote: »

i gave my side of the story , the sgt rang me , i told him i was in town and in the store that day but didnt see the person in question , reitterated the same thing during my interview while under arrest , thier was nothing further to add

Sorry, you previously said you didn't say anything in the interview. In any case, your version has to be put on record and if you decline to provide a voluntary cautioned statement for this then you must be arrested.

irishh_bob wrote: »

i dont mind sharing this info , this forum thread is free for all to see but i think you should at least look at the details from an objective legal standpoint , much as it pains you to edge away from your hang em and flog em philosophy , it gets tedious having to explain basic stuff over and over

I am being very objective. I think it is you that is not looking at it from an objective standpoint which is understandable as you were involved.

irishh_bob wrote: »

police recieve complaints all the time , police are often sure of someones guilt but without concrete evidence , they dont go to the trouble of arresting people when the chances of a summons and prosecution being brought are zero , its called dealing in reality , a guard might get some petty buzz out of arresting someone but if they have zilch to go on , its a bit silly and dont bang on again about the cctv footage of me in the shop , larry murphy since he was relased , is probably on cctv visting any amount of shops arround the country yet the cops know that without evidence for any allegation of wrongdoing , they are wasting thier time pursuing matters even for someone as notorious as him

With a statement of complaint and cctv which cooberates it there is plenty of evidence to justify further investigation. I don't know why you mentioned larry murphy. You can guarantee that if a woman said she had been assaulted by him and he was on cctv nearby then he would indeed be arrested.

irishh_bob

MagicSean wrote: »

You said he had made a number of complaints against you in the past and you were asked about all this in your interview. That's what I was referring to as the elements of the harassment.



Sorry, you previously said you didn't say anything in the interview. In any case, your version has to be put on record and if you decline to provide a voluntary cautioned statement for this then you must be arrested.



I am being very objective. I think it is you that is not looking at it from an objective standpoint which is understandable as you were involved.



With a statement of complaint and cctv which cooberates it there is plenty of evidence to justify further investigation. I don't know why you mentioned larry murphy. You can guarantee that if a woman said she had been assaulted by him and he was on cctv nearby then he would indeed be arrested.

you really know how to string out a conversation

i said earlier that this guy had built up a dossier of complaints against me over the years even before he and i had a fight , bar the assault charge , no other charges were brought against me , just because he told the cops that i intimidated him or something in the past , doesnt mean it can be added to harrassment file , as i said already , you have six months to turn complaints into charges , the recent investigation alledging harrassment cannot be used again in a years time if this geezer decides to pull a similar stunt about gestures or something , that incident is now dead , it went nowhere , it may aswell never have existed , thats not to say of course that an unproffessional and sarcastic cop cant snidely bring it up , he can but if he tried to in court , hed get a sharp rebuke pretty quick , cops take liberties in the interview room of a station which is why you should tell them nothing

this individual was summonsed to court for assaulting me in 2005 but the sitting judge threw out the charges , by your criteria , his summons still counts for something seven years on and dont say its different for him , i was never summonsed for any complaint he made against me bar the assault thing , in the eyes of the law , thier was no previous with us from the specific point of view of harrassment only , thier was only one alledged incident of harrassment and it has now been tossed

ive spent enough time discussing this with you , im going to leave off by saying what ive come to know

some people believe what they want to believe

MagicSean

irishh_bob wrote: »

you really know how to string out a conversation

i said earlier that this guy had built up a dossier of complaints against me over the years even before he and i had a fight , bar the assault charge , no other charges were brought against me , just because he told the cops that i intimidated him or something in the past , doesnt mean it can be added to harrassment file , as i said already , you have six months to turn complaints into charges , the recent investigation alledging harrassment cannot be used again in a years time if this geezer decides to pull a similar stunt about gestures or something , that incident is now dead , it went nowhere , it may aswell never have existed , thats not to say of course that an unproffessional and sarcastic cop cant snidely bring it up , he can but if he tried to in court , hed get a sharp rebuke pretty quick , cops take liberties in the interview room of a station which is why you should tell them nothing

this individual was summonsed to court for assaulting me in 2005 but the sitting judge threw out the charges , by your criteria , his summons still counts for something seven years on and dont say its different for him , i was never summonsed for any complaint he made against me bar the assault thing , in the eyes of the law , thier was no previous with us from the specific point of view of harrassment only , thier was only one alledged incident of harrassment and it has now been tossed

ive spent enough time discussing this with you , im going to leave off by saying what ive come to know

some people believe what they want to believe

Harassment is indictable so it does not have to be charged within 6 months. In addition if all the previous incidents can be linked to each other and the most recent incident as one case of harassment then the time limit starts from the most recent incident but the case can still include the previous stuff.

Cheerio.

irishh_bob

MagicSean wrote: »

Harassment is indictable so it does not have to be charged within 6 months. In addition if all the previous incidents can be linked to each other and the most recent incident as one case of harassment then the time limit starts from the most recent incident but the case can still include the previous stuff.

Cheerio.

academic theory stuff which has little if any likelihod in reality , this individual has the malevolent creativity of a hollywood scriptwriter but being able to dupe a bunch of country cops isnt enough to carry through a court conviction , the country is corrupt but not that corrupt

pirelli

MagicSean wrote: »

There's no limit on the span harassment can take. You were copnvicted of assault only. The other incidents from back then could still form part of the overall harassment.
That's why you were arrested. They had some evidence they wished to investigate and you wouldn't give your side of the story to refute the evidence they had.

MagicSean wrote: »

Enough for what?

Sufficient that he is not going to confess to something he did not do. He is not going to confess!!

I am not sure of the circumstances of the Tresspass in the initial assault in 2005? Did you try to forcibly remove him from the land irishbob?

However it seem's unfair that this man in light of making such an allegation in 2011 against Irish bob whom was going about his business shouldn't be allowed to tresspass on his land in the first place without been seen for what he was an aggressor.

Unfortunately his true colours are only coming to light now. So irish bob has suffered a potential injustice. It is much easier to prosecute an offence when you have a complainant- a witness testimony - and a confession although in this modern era they should not be essential.

My criticism from experience is the Gardai can sometimes fail (by fail i mean delay) to gather statements even volunteered and cautioned statements and crucial facts essential in building a strong circumstantial case the value of which is lost due to the passing of time, such as where were you that night and what were you wearing and who were you with and where did you go etc..

Essential for CCTV identification. Instead the Garda play old school and do nothing and then when the pressure is on, having waited months to get the cctv from the establishment without in the meantime gathering statements all is lost and they pressure for a testimony from witnesses/complainants to finger a suspect on cctv!

Rather than do the work they delay and wait and still rather than do the work they look for a dodgy testimoney/confession anything to justify doing any work. If they get this then they spend weeks trying to do all the work they should have done in the first place which would have only taken a few hours.


I wonder what explanation there is for the time after he left the shop- one minute - and the time irish bob left the shop as to what the accuser was doing. Was he perhaps chatting to someone outside the shop why was he still there?

Was at another location and can you track by cctv whether you were at that location.

irishh_bob

pirelli wrote: »

MagicSean wrote: »

There's no limit on the span harassment can take. You were copnvicted of assault only. The other incidents from back then could still form part of the overall harassment.
That's why you were arrested. They had some evidence they wished to investigate and you wouldn't give your side of the story to refute the evidence they had.

MagicSean wrote: »

Enough for what?

Sufficient that he is not going to confess to something he did not do. He is not going to confess!!

I am not sure of the circumstances of the Tresspass in the initial assault in 2005? Did you try to forcibly remove him from the land irishbob?

However it seem's unfair that this man in light of making such an allegation in 2011 against Irish bob whom was going about his business shouldn't be allowed to tresspass on his land in the first place without been seen for what he was an aggressor.

Unfortunately his true colours are only coming to light now. So irish bob has suffered a potential injustice. It is much easier to prosecute an offence when you have a complainant- a witness testimony - and a confession although in this modern era they should not be essential.

My criticism from experience is the Gardai can sometimes fail (by fail i mean delay) to gather statements even volunteered and cautioned statements and crucial facts essential in building a strong circumstantial case the value of which is lost due to the passing of time, such as where were you that night and what were you wearing and who were you with and where did you go etc..

Essential for CCTV identification. Instead the Garda play old school and do nothing and then when the pressure is on, having waited months to get the cctv from the establishment without in the meantime gathering statements all is lost and they pressure for a testimony from witnesses/complainants to finger a suspect on cctv!

Rather than do the work they delay and wait and still rather than do the work they look for a dodgy testimoney/confession anything to justify doing any work. If they get this then they spend weeks trying to do all the work they should have done in the first place which would have only taken a few hours.


I wonder what explanation there is for the time after he left the shop- one minute - and the time irish bob left the shop as to what the accuser was doing. Was he perhaps chatting to someone outside the shop why was he still there?

Was at another location and can you track by cctv whether you were at that location.

Thier will be no charges brought against me , the investigating sergeant rang me a number of weeks ago


As for the time when the row happened. , he punched me and I wrestled him to the ground , I then told him to leave , I pleaded not guilty when summonsed but put In my statement that I wrestled him to the ground , he denied laying a hand on me although in his statement acknowledged that I ordered him off my property

Finnbar01

irishh_bob wrote: »

Thier will be no charges brought against me , the investigating sergeant rang me a number of weeks ago

That's good news.

As for the time when the row happened. , he punched me and I wrestled him to the ground , I then told him to leave , I pleaded not guilty when summonsed but put In my statement that I wrestled him to the ground , he denied laying a hand on me although in his statement acknowledged that I ordered him off my property

Is there anything you can do now to strike out this conviction or will you just have to put it down to experience albeit a bad one?

irishh_bob

Finnbar01 wrote: »

irishh_bob wrote: »

Thier will be no charges brought against me , the investigating sergeant rang me a number of weeks ago

That's good news.

As for the time when the row happened. , he punched me and I wrestled him to the ground , I then told him to leave , I pleaded not guilty when summonsed but put In my statement that I wrestled him to the ground , he denied laying a hand on me although in his statement acknowledged that I ordered him off my property

Is there anything you can do now to strike out this conviction or will you just have to put it down to experience albeit a bad one?

It was struck out six years ago, scant consilation , he should have been convicted instead of me

pirelli

d4head77 wrote: »

I was recently involved in a case where a former partner claimed I assaulted her. The reality is we broke up, but she has a very seriously negative attitude towards any negative comment towards her, which includes rejection (by me, in this case). The night we parted (some 2 years ago) we argued, and she fell drunk, sustaining bruises. She complained to the Guards that I had pushed her, so I was brought to court for assault. The Guards saw through her straight away, and I gather, from reading between the lines, tried to dissuade her from persisting with her case, but she was determined to humiliate me as much as she could. I had to stand in court, having told every single word of truth, and listen to her lie, lie and lie again. There was no jury; the judge (female) simply said at the end, without explanation or anything, that she saw me as guilty. Three Gardaí and two prison officers preent in connection with a different case all approached me and my solicitor, telling us (a) they knew she was lying through her teeth, and (b) as one said "I can't believe she got away with that".

I feel humiliated, hurt, demeaned and abused. I feel betrayed. I dare not appeal (though my solicitor is urging me to) because I can't afford it (I am not entitled to legal aid) and because bad and all as the potential fallout of any publicity this attracts to me is, to invite further publicity will certainly jeopardise my job. I don't know what to do, where to turn. I told the truth, as I have been brought up to do; she told total, and complete lies, which is now in the public domain; not only is it inaccurate in totality (rather than exaggerated), it makes me out to be a monster in gutter-press journalistic speak. I am destroyed; I feel sick.

I never thought a human being could sink so low.

Keep us informed d4head77

d4head77

Thanks for your interest pirelli. I'll try to briefly answer a few points made by posters... Lucy was first - telling me in bold print not to write to the judge! Maybe it shows how naive I was, and still must be about court procedures. I would never have had any notion about trying to annoy the judge, even thogu she has dealt me a massive disservice. Irish Bob and Blatantrereg agreed with lucy - so fair play to ye all, I will take your advice and NOT send anything, and I'm glad you advised me on that. That said, it shocks me that a judge - already highly paid, should be so shielded from the real world that it is unwise for mere mortals to question them....

But I have taken you advice, and thanks.

IrishBob mentioned how I knew the guards didn;t believe her. She has family and work connections with guards, and I am certain she'll have been given "advice" by some of them, but unknown to one of the two who interviewed me, I know someone who knows them, and who was able to report to me that they said she was "no angel" and deliberately delayed sending anything to the DPP. They only did so a good year or so later after SHE complained they had done nothing. Hell hath no fury.

Pirelli mentioned her delays. I'd say that's because she was waiting to see if I would phone her and ask her out again. I had walked away from her three times before within a year, and she had managed to lure me back each time. This time I was deterimined never again.

Pirelli al;so mentioned her testimoney "showing" I was guilty of the commission of a crime. It didn't "show" - it couldn't, as I did not do what she said; she "claimed" it, but the judge might just as well have taken it as "showing" it.

Milk& Honey mentioned the doc's letter. Correct - it couldn't be taken as evidence, and the doc wasn;'t there - however - it was mentioned by the prosecution as existing. The guard's statements weren't admitted as evidence at all as they had not got the relevant guard to be there and stand as a witness, therefore they were unable to comment. There were no witnesses - hardly surprising, as you can't get a witness to something that never happened! So our lying compalinant got her stand in the witness box first, where she lied and lied and lied; then officials kept coming an interrupting the case and the judge with paperwork for two other cases where they wanted things signed to bail people .... byt this time the judge was getting pissed off.... then I was in the stand.

I felt towards the end the judge probably just wanted to go home - and this is borne out by what other posters have said.

As I implied before, i come from a simplistic world where if you are in a court, you will be let off if not guilty, and punished if guilty. All this by a conscientous solictor and barrister, a learned and fair judge, followi9ng investigation by guards whose sole aim is to fuind out thr truth.

BOY, have I had my eyes opened. This is an education I never thought I'd see, and which shocks me as much as it disgusts me. I would have looked up to people like that, now I look down on them. They are very clearly a shower of self-serving mutual back scratchers. Never, ever, ever, will I trust the judicial system in this country, or anything to do with it. As Bob Geldof said, "Banana Republic".

As for my appeal - they can stuff it. I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them. I'm counting on people who know me to judge me. I can't afford an appeal in front of another kangaroo court, and the reason (as someone wondered) why i don't want the publicity is for family and work reasons.

Final point re conviction as such - she said she would leave me without criminal record if I donated to a charity, which I did. So, that is presumably not going to come back and haunt me, or is there some other aspect of the legal system I have even yet not learned to distrust?

My genuine sympathies to other posters above who have shared their own unfortunate experience of what is obviously our shambolic, half witted lower echelons of the legal system.

blatantrereg

Final point re conviction as such - she said she would leave me without criminal record if I donated to a charity, which I did. So, that is presumably not going to come back and haunt me, or is there some other aspect of the legal system I have even yet not learned to distrust?

if you were given the probation act then I have it on good authority that it can cause issues with background checks even though I dont think it's supposed to.

Procrastastudy

That said, it shocks me that a judge - already highly paid, should be so shielded from the real world that it is unwise for mere mortals to question them....

I would have thought it was common sense why you can't do this!

However if you do appeal it will (most likely) be heard in the Circuit Court. Even I know, in my embryonic (an some might say moronic), stage of legal knowledge that judges appointed to the District Court don't tend to move up the chain for a reason.

ResearchWill

D4head77 if you do not appeal you are for ever admitting you are guilty.

There are a few things that I worry about in the information you give. You say that the guards waited over 12 months to send information to the DPP is that in relation to you case. You also say that a Garda statement was read to the court, why did your solicitor or barrister allow that.

As I said before the DC judge took an easy way out by convicting you but applying the POA she was trying to keep everyone happy.

If you can't afford appeal you have 2 choices the first is to offer your solicitor and barrister a small amount on a weekly basis untill the bill is paid, the second is to apply for legal aid in the circuit court.

According to your story, you got a bum deal, that's life it happens, but it's not the Garda or the judges fault it is your ex girlfriends fault. You have an opportunity to fix it if you do not want to that's your decision, but in a years time don't blame anyone else other than you, you are making the decision not to appeal and only you.

irishh_bob

d4head77 wrote: »

Thanks for your interest pirelli. I'll try to briefly answer a few points made by posters... Lucy was first - telling me in bold print not to write to the judge! Maybe it shows how naive I was, and still must be about court procedures. I would never have had any notion about trying to annoy the judge, even thogu she has dealt me a massive disservice. Irish Bob and Blatantrereg agreed with lucy - so fair play to ye all, I will take your advice and NOT send anything, and I'm glad you advised me on that. That said, it shocks me that a judge - already highly paid, should be so shielded from the real world that it is unwise for mere mortals to question them....

But I have taken you advice, and thanks.

IrishBob mentioned how I knew the guards didn;t believe her. She has family and work connections with guards, and I am certain she'll have been given "advice" by some of them, but unknown to one of the two who interviewed me, I know someone who knows them, and who was able to report to me that they said she was "no angel" and deliberately delayed sending anything to the DPP. They only did so a good year or so later after SHE complained they had done nothing. Hell hath no fury.

Pirelli mentioned her delays. I'd say that's because she was waiting to see if I would phone her and ask her out again. I had walked away from her three times before within a year, and she had managed to lure me back each time. This time I was deterimined never again.

Pirelli al;so mentioned her testimoney "showing" I was guilty of the commission of a crime. It didn't "show" - it couldn't, as I did not do what she said; she "claimed" it, but the judge might just as well have taken it as "showing" it.

Milk& Honey mentioned the doc's letter. Correct - it couldn't be taken as evidence, and the doc wasn;'t there - however - it was mentioned by the prosecution as existing. The guard's statements weren't admitted as evidence at all as they had not got the relevant guard to be there and stand as a witness, therefore they were unable to comment. There were no witnesses - hardly surprising, as you can't get a witness to something that never happened! So our lying compalinant got her stand in the witness box first, where she lied and lied and lied; then officials kept coming an interrupting the case and the judge with paperwork for two other cases where they wanted things signed to bail people .... byt this time the judge was getting pissed off.... then I was in the stand.

I felt towards the end the judge probably just wanted to go home - and this is borne out by what other posters have said.

As I implied before, i come from a simplistic world where if you are in a court, you will be let off if not guilty, and punished if guilty. All this by a conscientous solictor and barrister, a learned and fair judge, followi9ng investigation by guards whose sole aim is to fuind out thr truth.

BOY, have I had my eyes opened. This is an education I never thought I'd see, and which shocks me as much as it disgusts me. I would have looked up to people like that, now I look down on them. They are very clearly a shower of self-serving mutual back scratchers. Never, ever, ever, will I trust the judicial system in this country, or anything to do with it. As Bob Geldof said, "Banana Republic".

As for my appeal - they can stuff it. I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them. I'm counting on people who know me to judge me. I can't afford an appeal in front of another kangaroo court, and the reason (as someone wondered) why i don't want the publicity is for family and work reasons.

Final point re conviction as such - she said she would leave me without criminal record if I donated to a charity, which I did. So, that is presumably not going to come back and haunt me, or is there some other aspect of the legal system I have even yet not learned to distrust?

My genuine sympathies to other posters above who have shared their own unfortunate experience of what is obviously our shambolic, half witted lower echelons of the legal system.

your cutting off your nose to spite your face IMO , your so dissilusioned with how this ( obvious farce of a ) case was handled , you,ve decided to wallow and engage in pious self rightousness , let me be frank , the authorities ( judicary and guards ) dont give a damn about how you see yourself , i have no doubt that you are a decent upstanding member of the community but that is completley inconsequential , your descision to say sod them all is a mistake and one you will regret in time once you,ve gotten over the emotional impact

im serious , if you appeal , your conviction will be thrown out , you said that not only was her doctor not in court but that the doctors letter - report was only refered to , this is pure heresay , you will be dealing with a much more forensic judicial process at circuit court level and with a different judge , if you dont appeal this , you are choosing to take a beating lieing down and will end up doing so for the rest of your life , all you will be left with is bitter grudges to nurse

take it from someone who knows , appeal

irishh_bob

ResearchWill wrote: »

D4head77 if you do not appeal you are for ever admitting you are guilty.

There are a few things that I worry about in the information you give. You say that the guards waited over 12 months to send information to the DPP is that in relation to you case. You also say that a Garda statement was read to the court, why did your solicitor or barrister allow that.

As I said before the DC judge took an easy way out by convicting you but applying the POA she was trying to keep everyone happy.

If you can't afford appeal you have 2 choices the first is to offer your solicitor and barrister a small amount on a weekly basis untill the bill is paid, the second is to apply for legal aid in the circuit court.

According to your story, you got a bum deal, that's life it happens, but it's not the Garda or the judges fault it is your ex girlfriends fault. You have an opportunity to fix it if you do not want to that's your decision, but in a years time don't blame anyone else other than you, you are making the decision not to appeal and only you.

your letting the judge off far too lightly , judges allow personal prejudices to interfere with thier descisions all the time , especially at local level and its clear that this judge convicted on a whole lot of heresay , as for the gardai , it sounds like they deliberatley omited information which would help the op and hurt the ex , guards do things like this all the time , i had a consultants report detailing the hemotoba i suffered as a result of a punch in the face several years ago , i also had photographic evidence , the guards chose not to include this as evidence yet made sure to use the other guys doctors report as evidence , my idiot solicitor let this slide and the judge never got to read the consultants report and only caught sight of the photographic evidence while on the bench at the last minute

d4head77

Thanks again. Folks, I'm not wallowing in self pity... though I appreciate your interest and exchanges.

I'm going to appeal it. I've changed my mind. They can't get away with this. I'll work something re the money, though it;'s already cost me €4k.

irishh_bob

d4head77 wrote: »

Thanks again. Folks, I'm not wallowing in self pity... though I appreciate your interest and exchanges.

I'm going to appeal it. I've changed my mind. They can't get away with this. I'll work something re the money, though it;'s already cost me €4k.

fair play to you for choosing to fight back

are you going to use the same solicitor again ? , i cant imagine your lawyer done a great job if you lost the first time

i know an excellent criminal lawyer although he is expensive

pirelli

d4head77 wrote: »

Pirelli mentioned her delays. I'd say that's because she was waiting to see if I would phone her and ask her out again. I had walked away from her three times before within a year, and she had managed to lure me back each time. This time I was deterimined never again.

Pirelli also mentioned her testimoney "showing" I was guilty of the commission of a crime. It didn't "show" - it couldn't, as I did not do what she said; she "claimed" it, but the judge might just as well have taken it as "showing" it.

I had meant showing you committed an offence. I use the word showing as it's used in the criminal law act.

I think research will has given you some great points to work on.Don;t overlook these. You might really have a case after all. I have no doubt your being honest but your case is very difficult from my perspective.

Imagine this was a homocide. In most murder cases where a spouse is found dead the husband or wife is the first suspect. If you had just had an argument and she was found dead near where you last argued then you can damn well be sure you would be the main suspect and in very hot water.

In your case she is not dead and she is alive and well and pointing the finger at you as the person who assaulted her.

I know this is not a murder trial but you have an uphill battle but i think you very for fortunate that poster like milk and honey and research will have noticed discrepancy's that might be make the bones of an appeal.

irishh_bob

pirelli wrote: »

I had meant showing you committed an offence. I use the word showing as it's used in the criminal law act.

I think research will has given you some great points to work on.Don;t overlook these. You might really have a case after all. I have no doubt your being honest but your case is very difficult from my perspective.

Imagine this was a homocide. In most murder cases where a spouse is found dead the husband or wife is the first suspect. If you had just had an argument and she was found dead near where you last argued then you can damn well be sure you would be the main suspect and in very hot water.

In your case she is not dead and she is alive and well and pointing the finger at you as the person who assaulted her.

I know this is not a murder trial but you have an uphill battle but i think you very for fortunate that poster like milk and honey and research will have noticed discrepancy's that might be make the bones of an appeal.

your word against mine is among the most basic get out of jail cards in the legal world , so what if the OP,s ex has pointed the finger at him , that might be enough to warrant suspicion and prosecution but its certainly doesnt offer enough to push through a conviction , in some cases perhaps but the evidence here is far from fool proof

pirelli

irishh_bob wrote: »

your word against mine is among the most basic get out of jail cards in the legal world , so what if the OP,s ex has pointed the finger at him , that might be enough to warrant suspicion and prosecution but its certainly doesnt offer enough to push through a conviction , in some cases perhaps but the evidence here is far from fool proof

It's worth fighting if there are issues with his original 'trial' ( is that the right word) on legal grounds and this might strike it out.

However let's turn the tables and see what evidence he might have to convict her of making a false statement.

- CCTV -
- Why no witness intervened or called the police if he allegedly assaulted her.
People report such an incident within seconds if they see it. No such report was made. No witness to the assault in what possibly is a busy night spot.
- There seemed to be an indecision or long delay on the complainants part to make a complaint.
- She had been drinking and was probably emotionally upset and it's more than possible she just blamed him for the entire evening.
- People with drink have been known to fall flat on their face and sometimes people do blame other people for some reason.

Her evidence

- Medical letter, questionable circumstances such as ex boyfriend being present when she fell initially and yet ex boyfriend did not seek help for her. She had a nasty gash on her face, and people were concerned about her well being and encouraged her to call the emergency services. He left the scene very soon after she fell raising questions as to was there an argument before or after she fell or was he running for a bus?

They were having serious relationship issues.

The ex boyfriend did nothing to help her and yet claims he was present when she fell. He was hardly supporting her as she walked along drunk. He left her company soon after she fell.

She flagged down a Police car and reported she was assaulted.

She has medical records to support she was injured in what is very likely a fall due to the proximity of those injuries .

She later went to the police station and filed a complaint.

I am not sure if this is fair but the initial Garda that responded did not give an opinion as to her state of intoxication so this is still an open question. Would be helpful either way to hear an opinion on this.

Kosseegan

d4head77 wrote: »

Thanks again. Folks, I'm not wallowing in self pity... though I appreciate your interest and exchanges.

I'm going to appeal it. I've changed my mind. They can't get away with this. I'll work something re the money, though it;'s already cost me €4k.

If you have spent 4k on that kind of incompetent defence you deserve what you got!

MagicSean

How do you spend 4k on a district court case for assault? Seems very high.

irishh_bob

pirelli wrote: »

It's worth fighting if there are issues with his original 'trial' ( is that the right word) on legal grounds and this might strike it out.

However let's turn the tables and see what evidence he might have to convict her of making a false statement.

- CCTV -
- Why no witness intervened or called the police if he allegedly assaulted her.
People report such an incident within seconds if they see it. No such report was made. No witness to the assault in what possibly is a busy night spot.
- There seemed to be an indecision or long delay on the complainants part to make a complaint.
- She had been drinking and was probably emotionally upset and it's more than possible she just blamed him for the entire evening.
- People with drink have been known to fall flat on their face and sometimes people do blame other people for some reason.

Her evidence

- Medical letter, questionable circumstances such as ex boyfriend being present when she fell initially and yet ex boyfriend did not seek help for her. She had a nasty gash on her face, and people were concerned about her well being and encouraged her to call the emergency services. He left the scene very soon after she fell raising questions as to was there an argument before or after she fell or was he running for a bus?

They were having serious relationship issues.

The ex boyfriend did nothing to help her and yet claims he was present when she fell. He was hardly supporting her as she walked along drunk. He left her company soon after she fell.

She flagged down a Police car and reported she was assaulted.

She has medical records to support she was injured in what is very likely a fall due to the proximity of those injuries .

She later went to the police station and filed a complaint.

I am not sure if this is fair but the initial Garda that responded did not give an opinion as to her state of intoxication so this is still an open question. Would be helpful either way to hear an opinion on this.

all of those points are open to interpretation and could have multiple explanations , as i said earlier , thier is any amount of doubt surrounding the accusations

your point about the couple going through difficulties takes the prize for irrelevance

irishh_bob

MagicSean wrote: »

How do you soend 4k on a district court case for assault? Seems very high.

agree with the above poster for once

my dud of a solicitor spent several months from start to finish dealing with my case and the total bill was less than 1500 euro , i did however have to pay a young barrister 500 euro to get badgered by the judge :mad:

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

It's worth fighting if there are issues with his original 'trial' ( is that the right word) on legal grounds and this might strike it out.

However let's turn the tables and see what evidence he might have to convict her of making a false statement.

- CCTV -
- Why no witness intervened or called the police if he allegedly assaulted her.
People report such an incident within seconds if they see it. No such report was made. No witness to the assault in what possibly is a busy night spot.
- There seemed to be an indecision or long delay on the complainants part to make a complaint.
- She had been drinking and was probably emotionally upset and it's more than possible she just blamed him for the entire evening.
- People with drink have been known to fall flat on their face and sometimes people do blame other people for some reason.

Her evidence

- Medical letter, questionable circumstances such as ex boyfriend being present when she fell initially and yet ex boyfriend did not seek help for her. She had a nasty gash on her face, and people were concerned about her well being and encouraged her to call the emergency services. He left the scene very soon after she fell raising questions as to was there an argument before or after she fell or was he running for a bus?

They were having serious relationship issues.

The ex boyfriend did nothing to help her and yet claims he was present when she fell. He was hardly supporting her as she walked along drunk. He left her company soon after she fell.

She flagged down a Police car and reported she was assaulted.

She has medical records to support she was injured in what is very likely a fall due to the proximity of those injuries .

She later went to the police station and filed a complaint.

I am not sure if this is fair but the initial Garda that responded did not give an opinion as to her state of intoxication so this is still an open question. Would be helpful either way to hear an opinion on this.

irishh_bob wrote: »

all of those points are open to interpretation and could have multiple explanations , as i said earlier , thier is any amount of doubt surrounding the accusations

your point about the couple going through difficulties takes the prize for irrelevance

The lady was in a distressed state I think that is relevant. It would not justify making a false statement tending to show the commission of an offence.

However there was no witness so none of us know.

I was looking at it from the judges perspective. Try weighing up which way the scales balance and they weigh in her favour in my opinion. That is not to say she is innocent and he is guilty. He was not convicted.

Thankfully, so we only have to deal with whether she made a false statement.
What evidence do you have that she made a false statement. We are no where near proving she made a false statement. People are such liars it's unbelievable and we have all suffered the hardship of another's deceit. Circumstances can sometimes lend towards a one persons side of the story regardless of the truth. She was left in a distressed state with apparently a injury to her face. I accept the OP may well have been describing a bruise which might not have surfaced and may have gone unnoticed.

In his favour he has the Garda who spoke with her on the night in question
Did they see a injury on her face. Why did they do nothing.
Did they sense she was intoxicated.

Unless she recants her testimony then he has to swing on her rope unless he can prove she lied. He was NOT convicted of any crime.

MagicSean

He was convicted of assault. That is why he is appealing.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

He was convicted of assault. That is why he is appealing.

He got the benifit of the Probation of offenders act, I have asked which section but I assume section 1 (1) (i) if that was the case then the Judge found him guilty but struck out the matter.

See here, http://www.probation.ie/pws/websitepublishing.nsf/attachmentsbytitle/Probation+of+Offenders+Act+1907/$file/Probation+of+Offenders+Act+1907.pdf

To quote the OP "She told me that in view of my good record she would not give me a record, and told me to make a small charitable donation plus, very galling, she asked the so-called victim, by now revelling in her fairy tales having worked, how much she had spent getting a doctor's letter. SHe replied, straight away, 150. I don't think doctors charge that for a letter! But the judge asked her had she a receipt. She said no. The judge then just told me to pay her 150."

irishh_bob

pirelli wrote: »

The lady was in a distressed state I think that is relevant. It would not justify making a false statement tending to show the commission of an offence.

However there was no witness so none of us know.

I was looking at it from the judges perspective. Try weighing up which way the scales balance and they weigh in her favour in my opinion. That is not to say she is innocent and he is guilty. He was not convicted.

Thankfully, so we only have to deal with whether she made a false statement.
What evidence do you have that she made a false statement. We are no where near proving she made a false statement. People are such liars it's unbelievable and we have all suffered the hardship of another's deceit. Circumstances can sometimes lend towards a one persons side of the story regardless of the truth. She was left in a distressed state with apparently a injury to her face. I accept the OP may well have been describing a bruise which might not have surfaced and may have gone unnoticed.

In his favour he has the Garda who spoke with her on the night in question
Did they see a injury on her face. Why did they do nothing.
Did they sense she was intoxicated.

Unless she recants her testimony then he has to swing on her rope unless he can prove she lied. He was NOT convicted of any crime.

you dont have to prove that an accusers statement was false in order to clear someone of an assault conviction , you only need to show that thier is still reasonable doubt about the accusations , the prosecution didnt go near prooving beyond reasonable doubt that the OP was guilty IMO