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

It looks like a jack hammer or pile driver is required!

Of course we know that the Gardai determined that there was some merit in the case, you don't need need to be a legal eagle or a rocket scientist to figure that one out, if the Gardai determined that there was absolutely no merit in the case they would have thrown it out without consideration, Ms Pierse would never have seen it, this is how the system works and it's not rocket sciece.

That could possibly be the case, but if it is it's the Gardai shirking their responsibilities, which is not how the system should work.

Gardai are not legal experts, and this type of offence is as technically complex as you generally get.

So it's most likely a mixture of things, at the core of it would be both the admissions/statements from Varadkar about the fact that he provided the document, and the desire from Garda top brass to avoid a PR issue.

If the Gardai dropped it without going to the DPP, you're basically inviting independent legal experts to publish lengthy commentary about why they shouldn't have dropped it and whether this speaks to favouritism in the force.

Most likely from day 1 the decision had been made to hand this to the DPP for expert oversight no matter what the Gardai believed the outcome to be.

In principle, the Gardai shouldn't defer to the DPP unless they think there's a good case, but as I say in reality the Gardai are not legal experts and often have to defer to the DPP on complex cases.

Varadkar has the benefit of being about the only person who can say they have obtained legal advice on this (everyone else has to keep quiet until the case is resolved), and it seems unwise to dismiss his confidence out of hand, just because he's under the spotlight. If his legal advice told him he was going to be in trouble here, I don't think he would claim innocence and brazen it out. More likely in that case to try and strike a deal, hands up, contrite, error in judgement, and make it go away.

All fine and dandy, but they have spent over a year (?) investigating this, did they decide from day 1 we can't be ar3ed here, this is for the DPP, over to her, and just leave it hanging around the office for a year. If this is what they did then it's an abuse of the system, as is sending a case that they have determined has absolutely no merit to the DPP.

Well no, they gathered statements and data from phones and whatever else they felt they needed. We also heard that the case was frustrated by Cosgrave and his gang frequently calling to make new statements with "new" information.

Investigations take time and Gardai assigned to cases are working on a number of them at a given time. As there is no public risk here, then there is no great urgency, so the case may very well have sat idle for weeks at a time while the Gardai assigned to it were looking at more urgent cases.

Like I say, this is a complex case. The Gardai don't have the legal knowledge to determine "absolutely no merit". The Gardai and the DPP want to prosecute cases that they think they can win. Sometimes that's pretty straightforward. Often times that requires a deep legal experience and understanding of how a case is likely to go based on the evidence presented.

I can't figure out how to remove stuff from a post before responding, must sign up for the course

But speaking of tosh - When the Gardaí investigate a serious crime, they send a file to the DPP - I presume you can figure out what is factually wrong with that statement

Ah well then. Some randomer on boards says it's really simple and he's definitely guilty. Case closed, so.

Fvck sake.

Lots of you lads would make the worst jurors.

Wow. Why don't you address the post and not the poster? Care to highlight some of the complexities maybe? We are all randomers on boards no?

Pretty much what that poster quoted/said was covered on the radio a few months back.

They never said it was simple, what was said was that Leo has committed a crime. The severity of the crime is what is being called into question. It is illegal to share/leak a confidential document, but if it was done for any benefits/advantage then it is an awful lot more serious.

I would imagine the more difficult part to prove would be if there were any benefits or advantage to him leaking it.

Is it? I think you'll find it's not illegal to share a confidential document, otherwise it would make it very difficult to produce confidential documents.

Whether sharing of a confidential document was illegal depends entirely on who it was shared with and the purpose for which it was shared. "Leak" is not a legal term, and exactly the same, "leaking" a document is not automatically illegal. Providing confidential meeting minutes to a person who was not at the meeting is "leaking", but that doesn't mean it is illegal or even wrong.

Tangible: Clear and definite; Real.

That is, it cannot be a potential or theoretical advantage. There has to be a demonstrable gain.

"Tangible: Clear and definite; Real.

That is, it cannot be a potential or theoretical advantage. There has to be a demonstrable gain."

an undue advantage may be money, a loan, shares in a company, a holiday, food and drink, sex, enrolment in a school for an official’s child, or a promotion, as long as it places the official in a better position than he/she was before the commission of the offence.

There are many ways to determine advantage or benefits, it is not limited by tangibility.