Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

shatners bassoon

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the charge is that he gained political advantage (eg. NAGP didn't stand candidates against FG) then that will be enough. If the charge is that somebody else received advantage from the act of leaking the document, the same applies.
The 'burden' falls on the defendant to disprove that. The significant change that has been made prosecution of corruption cases easier in Ireland.

Not a word of that is wrong.

Is there somewhere other than The Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018 that you're getting this from?


'14. (1) Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence under section 5 , 6 , 7 or 8 , it is proved that—

(a) a gift, consideration or advantage has been—

(i) given to an official or a connected person of an official...

...the gift, consideration or advantage shall be presumed to have been given and received corruptly'

The Supreme Court also ruled on the equivalent presumption from the previous, now repealed Act and stated that the the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt all of the elements, 'with the exception of the component that is the subject of the presumption - the corrupt intention.'

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da02c804653d058440f99bb

Leo will need to call in Rumpole of the Bailey to defend him against all the hotshot online legal eagles.

FrancieBrady

shatners bassoon wrote: »

Is there somewhere other than The Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018 that you're getting this from?


'14. (1) Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence under section 5 , 6 , 7 or 8 , it is proved that—

(a) a gift, consideration or advantage has been—

(i) given to an official or a connected person of an official...

...the gift, consideration or advantage shall be presumed to have been given and received corruptly'

The Supreme Court also ruled on the equivalent presumption from the previous, now repealed Act and stated that the the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt all of the elements, 'with the exception of the component that is the subject of the presumption - the corrupt intention.'

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da02c804653d058440f99bb

Read the first bit of my post again.

shatners bassoon

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Read the first bit of my post again.

I did and I still don't get it!

The burden doesn't fall on Varadkar to disprove the allegation that he received an advantage. The prosecution has to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. It literally says it in the Act, 'Where it is proved that an advantage has been given'.

FrancieBrady

shatners bassoon wrote: »

I did and I still don't get it!

The burden doesn't fall on Varadkar to disprove the allegation that he received an advantage. The prosecution has to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. It literally says it in the Act, 'Where it is proved that an advantage has been given'.

In its judgment the Court of Appeal held that section 4 of the PCA 2001 imposes a legal burden of proof on the accused. While the Court recognised that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional right pursuant to Article 38.1 of the Irish Constitution, as well as a right under common law and under Article 6.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, it observed that this right is not absolute. According to the Court of Appeal restrictions on the presumption of innocence can be justified in circumstances of special or particular importance and need and where it is exceptionally appropriate to the crime and where it is reasonable. In addition, the legislative provision must be explicit in regard to the obligation imposed and “nothing less than a clear imposition will be construed as doing so.”

The Court held that section 4 explicitly reverses the legal burden of proof. It also held that it was justified “in the unusual circumstances of the prevalence of corruption worldwide and the difficulty of proving intention, even where the circumstances are strongly suggestive of criminality.” The Court observed that Article 28 of the United Nations Convention on Corruption 2005 seems to authorise a provision of the type set out in section 4 and that it has to be assumed that Article 28 is not in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its acknowledgment of the presumption of innocence.

shatners bassoon

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In its judgment the Court of Appeal held that section 4 of the PCA 2001 imposes a legal burden of proof on the accused. While the Court recognised that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional right pursuant to Article 38.1 of the Irish Constitution, as well as a right under common law and under Article 6.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, it observed that this right is not absolute. According to the Court of Appeal restrictions on the presumption of innocence can be justified in circumstances of special or particular importance and need and where it is exceptionally appropriate to the crime and where it is reasonable. In addition, the legislative provision must be explicit in regard to the obligation imposed and “nothing less than a clear imposition will be construed as doing so.”

The Court held that section 4 explicitly reverses the legal burden of proof. It also held that it was justified “in the unusual circumstances of the prevalence of corruption worldwide and the difficulty of proving intention, even where the circumstances are strongly suggestive of criminality.” The Court observed that Article 28 of the United Nations Convention on Corruption 2005 seems to authorise a provision of the type set out in section 4 and that it has to be assumed that Article 28 is not in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its acknowledgment of the presumption of innocence.

1. This is the same case that was subsequently appealed to the SC that I linked above

2. It doesn't back up your point at all!

FrancieBrady

shatners bassoon wrote: »

1. This is the same case that was subsequently appealed to the SC that I linked above

2. It doesn't back up your point at all!

That is an analysis of the 'appeal' brought by Forsey.

Reverse burden of proof provisions have been the subject of considerable debate both in Ireland and abroad. Recently the Court of Appeal, in a rare judgment on the interpretation of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, upheld a provision which imposes a reverse burden of proof in certain bribery cases. The judgment relates to an appeal brought by former Fine Gael Councillor, Mr Fred Forsey, against his conviction on six counts of bribery for which he was sentenced to six years imprisonment. In its judgment the Court of Appeal also addressed arguments regarding whether Mr Forsey’s actions fell within the scope of his office.

https://www.mccannfitzgerald.com/knowledge/disputes/court-of-appeal-rules-on-reverse-burden-of-proof-in-corruption-case#:~:text=Under%20a%20legal%20burden%20of,her%20functions%20under%20the%20Planning




And it does back up the point that, the presumption of innocence is not absolute and the burden of proof.

Not going down a rabbit hole on this stuff anymore. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Where would we be at if 'legal opinions' expressed on this thread had any impact on what happened.

shatners bassoon

Haha ok, my last word on it.

The general point re: the constitutionality of reversing the burden of proof is not at issue here. The problem is that you are arguing that the reversal applies to all elements of s14 of the 2018 Act. It doesn't. It clearly only applies to corrupt intention.

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

Leo will need to call in Rumpole of the Bailey to defend him against all the hotshot online legal eagles.

Well lets hope he doesnt call in Joespha Madigan or else he is truly fcuked

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Leo will need to call in Rumpole of the Bailey to defend him against all the hotshot online legal eagles.

Hardly, sure Leo's adamant he'll not be charged.

skimpydoo

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Jesus man, are you just going to keep repeating this despite being clearly shown to be wrong?

When he is proven not to be wrong, what will you say?

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the charge is that he gained political advantage (eg. NAGP didn't stand candidates against FG)

I popped my head into this thread again and see this beaut

Fine Gael must have been quaking in their boots that the GP trade union would.. run.. independent candidates.

That barrel has not quite been scraped yet, but we're surely getting there.

A more pressing issue is that brought to attention by O'Thuanthail and that is in relation to the volume of bureaucratic tape that doctors must go through to become vaccinators for Covid-19

https://twitter.com/DrZeroCraic/status/1376449363589931008

Publicly appealing for consideration in relation to GPs, and for bureaucratic red tape to be waived for the sake of practicality. Will O'Thuanthail ever learn?

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

I popped my head into this thread again and see this beaut

Fine Gael must have been quaking in their boots that the GP trade union would.. run.. independent candidates.

That barrel has not quite been scraped yet, but we're surely getting there.

A more pressing issue is that brought to attention by O'Thuanthail and that is in relation to the volume of bureaucratic tape that doctors must go through to become vaccinators for Covid-19

https://twitter.com/DrZeroCraic/status/1376449363589931008

Publicly appealing for consideration in relation to GPs, and for bureaucratic red tape to be waived for the sake of practicality. Will O'Thuanthail ever learn?

Not getting the relevance to this thread, did Leo leak vaccines to OTuathail now or what, or are we still discussing him leaking confidential information?

James Brown

McMurphy wrote: »

Not getting the relevance to this thread, did Leo leak vaccines to OTuathail now or what, or are we still discussing him leaking confidential information?

Maybe Zero Craic is being brought in from the cold as an official 'good egg' just trying to do right by GP's, which might help Varadkar's claim of same.

LV leaked it for support IMO.

J.O. Farmer

McMurphy wrote: »

Not getting the relevance to this thread, did Leo leak vaccines to OTuathail now or what, or are we still discussing him leaking confidential information?

I think the relevance is O'Roole is calling for bureaucratic red tape to be waived for the sake of practicality.

Isn't Leo waiving bureaucratic red tape and proper procedure with the GP contract what himself and Leo into this mess.

We'll have to see if Leo delivers but given what happened with the coombe and Beacon much of the training will probably be about not giving your casual acquaintances preferential treatment and allowingthem to skip the queue. Otherwise on the actual injecting the doctors should be fairly proficient.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If he is charged and it is part of that charge that he received political advantage, the 'burden' (do you understand that word in a legal context?) of proof is on the defendant.
The onus is on him to prove that he didn't receive advantage. Further, it can also be a crime for somebody else to have gained advantage from your corrupt act.

Your arguments are getting ridiculous. You are suggesting proving something that can't be shown to exist. What next - will we prosecute every TD who has ever gotten a constituent a medical card or fixed a pothole on their road.

jammiedodgers

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Jesus man, are you just going to keep repeating this despite being clearly shown to be wrong?

Pot, allow me to introduce you to kettle

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Your arguments are getting ridiculous. You are suggesting proving something that can't be shown to exist. What next - will we prosecute every TD who has ever gotten a constituent a medical card or fixed a pothole on their road.

I am NOT the one investigating this as a criminal act. Please take your pleas for leniency to them. I doubt 'sure they are all at it' will work, but you never know.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am NOT the one investigating this as a criminal act. Please take your pleas for leniency to them. I doubt 'sure they are all at it' will work, but you never know.

Unfortunately 'they' are now in coalition.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Not getting the relevance to this thread, did Leo leak vaccines to OTuathail now or what, or are we still discussing him leaking confidential information?

I'm guessing that the people here who are so worked up about this case must agree with all the red tape for GPs to do vaccines. After all, they are opposed to GPs learning about the GP agreement and feel that the then Taoiseach should be prosecuted for providing them with such. They must also feel that O'Thuanthail asking for the burden placed on GPs (in relation to providing vaccinations) must be with some weird political angle, because it apparently is not possible for him to be, in good faith, asking for something on behalf of GPs. Similarly if the IMO sends an email to the Department of Health to reconsider these restrictions, the people here clearly feel that the IMO should be prosecuted for not filing this as lobbying. Finally if the minister for health does act upon the complaints from GPs concerning this red tape, and moves to reduce these requirments, it is clearly corruption, because he will be doing it to increase Fianna Fail's standing among GPs.

skimpydoo

As the late great George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it" This applies to the average voter and SF. FFG and its supporters don't like the fact that SF is closing in on their cosy cartel because it won't be what it once was.

ohnonotgmail

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm guessing that the people here who are so worked up about this case must agree with all the red tape for GPs to do vaccines. After all, they are opposed to GPs learning about the GP agreement and feel that the then Taoiseach should be prosecuted for providing them with such. They must also feel that O'Thuanthail asking for the burden placed on GPs (in relation to providing vaccinations) must be with some weird political angle, because it apparently is not possible for him to be, in good faith, asking for something on behalf of GPs. Similarly if the IMO sends an email to the Department of Health to reconsider these restrictions, the people here clearly feel that the IMO should be prosecuted for not filing this as lobbying. Finally if the minister for health does act upon the complaints from GPs concerning this red tape, and moves to reduce these requirments, it is clearly corruption, because he will be doing it to increase Fianna Fail's standing among GPs.

Jesus, did you actually engage your brain before writing that nonsense?

RandomName2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Jesus, did you actually engage your brain before writing that nonsense?

You're right. The subject matter of this thread is nonsense. It always has been because this >>

skimpydoo wrote: »

As the late great George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it" This applies to the average voter and SF. FFG and its supporters don't like the fact that SF is closing in on their cosy cartel because it won't be what it once was.

has always been the motivation. The 'but Sinn Fein' defense is desperately used to try and avoid discussion of the fact that this is, quite transparently, about politics. It always has been.

Nobody attacking the sharing of the GP contract with GPs would care if it didn't involve someone high up in Fine Gael (or 'FFG' as you might say - an acronym as witty as it is original).

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're right. The subject matter of this thread is nonsense. It always has been because this >>




has always been the motivation. The 'but Sinn Fein' defense is desperately used to try and avoid discussion of the fact that this is, quite transparently, about politics. It always has been.

Nobody attacking the sharing of the GP contract with GPs would care if it didn't involve someone high up in Fine Gael (or 'FFG' as you might say - an acronym as witty as it is original).

You do know you are talking about SF being used to avoid discussion in a Leo Varadkar leak thread? Are you talking about yourself?

That's your thinking.
For me I don't think anything will happen to Varadkar. What I don't like is FF/FG/Green making it okay for ministers to engage in such cronyism. What else might be happening? Will politicians bother thinking twice before engaging in other forms of cronyism? Not likely.

Necro

Dempo1 wrote: »

Must be a terribly traumatic day for those SF bashers who use the party to deflect attention from matters to hand. No prosecutions regarding the Bobby story funeral debacle. No doubt there will be another nonsensical fairytale latched onto involving SF soon but meanwhile, any updates on Leaky Leo travails

Threadbanned for obvious trolling/baiting

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

You do know you are talking about SF being used to avoid discussion in a Leo Varadkar leak thread?

Technically speaking this question doesn't mean anything. I mean that the only motivation is opinion polls. Sure a couple people dozens of pages back said that nobody would care if was a rank-and-file politician, but the fact that it was the last Taoiseach, now Taniaste, meant that it was worth pursuing. If you think this is about ending cronyism you are barking up the wrong tree.

James Brown wrote: »

What I don't like is FF/FG/Green making it okay for ministers to engage in such cronyism.

I have yet to see the public harm that sharing the GP agreement with a GP union has done. Nobody has ever attempted to demonstrate that it has done so, presumably because there isn't some angle that would involve Fine Gael by doing so.

James Brown wrote: »

Will politicians bother thinking twice before engaging in other forms of cronyism? Not likely.

Well there was a leak today about the easing of lockdown restrictions, so I guess not.

Dempo1 wrote: »

Must be a terribly traumatic day for those SF bashers who use the party to deflect attention from matters to hand. No prosecutions regarding the Bobby story funeral debacle. No doubt there will be another nonsensical fairytale latched onto involving SF soon but meanwhile, any updates on Leaky Leo travails

I can only assume anybody who would still be going on about the Bobby Story funeral would be someone desperate to land an attack on Sinn Fein. There's nothing more to say about the Bobby Story funeral.

Well, there hasn't been much to say about the GP agreement either, but Varadkar bashers are fairly persistent (though their bon mots never have moved much beyond the alliteration of Leak and Leo).

_Kaiser_

In an interesting parallel, the head of the VHI has stepped aside while an investigation into him getting the vaccine while at the Beacon hospital is conducted.

In his case it says he was in for a serious illness so I can understand the logic but he's stepped aside anyway.

Contrast that with Leo who is the subject of a criminal investigation of his actions while head of the country.

skimpydoo

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're right. The subject matter of this thread is nonsense. It always has been because this >>




has always been the motivation. The 'but Sinn Fein' defense is desperately used to try and avoid discussion of the fact that this is, quite transparently, about politics. It always has been.

It's more than just politics and certain political parties, it's about openly allowing cronyism to happen. If this had involved s SF minister I would want them gone too, in fact, whoever leaked it should be gone. If this is allowed to happen now any future politician will be thinking there is nothing wrong with doing this.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Technically speaking this question doesn't mean anything. I mean that the only motivation is opinion polls. Sure a couple people dozens of pages back said that nobody would care if was a rank-and-file politician, but the fact that it was the last Taoiseach, now Taniaste, meant that it was worth pursuing. If you think this is about ending cronyism you are barking up the wrong tree.



I have yet to see the public harm that sharing the GP agreement with a GP union has done. Nobody has ever attempted to demonstrate that it has done so, presumably because there isn't some angle that would involve Fine Gael by doing so.




Well there was a leak today about the easing of lockdown restrictions, so I guess not.



I can only assume anybody who would still be going on about the Bobby Story funeral would be someone desperate to land an attack on Sinn Fein. There's nothing more to say about the Bobby Story funeral.

Well, there hasn't been much to say about the GP agreement either, but Varadkar bashers are fairly persistent (though their bon mots never have moved much beyond the alliteration of Leak and Leo).

Your opinion on the motivation is irrelevant.
And yes, it is a bigger deal the higher the position. Of course it is.

The damage to the trust and ethics of government is the issue. It's not for Varadkar or Zero Craic to judge or decide if they leak the confidential documents of others. They did it for themselves.

So you're side stepping your using SF to deflect while complaining about people using SF to deflect?

Nobotty

James Brown wrote: »

Your opinion on the motivation is irrelevant.
And yes, it is a bigger deal the higher the position. Of course it is.

The damage to the trust and ethics of government is the issue. It's not for Varadkar or Zero Craic to judge or decide if they leak the confidential documents of others. They did it for themselves.

So you're side stepping your using SF to deflect while complaining about people using SF to deflect?

You're actually articulating the whole problem with what you are trying to do there
Gp's not members of the IMO would have to sign up to this exact same agreement
Vradakar is saying he took a shortcut to getting the head of 40% of gp's at the time a full heads up
He should have called him in to his office and noterised a meeting instead
Going against that spin on what happened and trying to spin it as a non coincidental favour to FG aswell as corruption,is I have to say the most cloud cuckoo land proposition I've read on these threads to date
Thats why,while I'm not surprised that the gardaí are being very thorough,I'm not expecting charges here
I'd like to see a new government too but I'm afraid lads,this isnt the route to it