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

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.

You prove my point. If somebody like yourself, a boards randomer shall we say, who isn't a legal professional I presume, can get to the nub of the matter, then it won't prove to be a complex matter for the professionals working on the case.

It's may become complex if unwarranted or undue influence is brought to bare or if the parties to the matter deliberately obfuscate.

"Confidential" implies that the audience of the document is to be restricted. I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but this is the whole argument. You can't say that sharing a confidential document is illegal, because it's not. For a start, it's perfectly fine on every level to share a confidential document with people who are entitled to see it. If the audience is not explicitly defined, then any recipient may be permitted to share the document with another if they believe there is a good reason why that person can or should be entitled to see it too.

Outside of that, a document being marked "confidential" may not necessarily make it illegal - i.e. an offence - to share it with other parties. It may be a civil issue.

Nearly every word in the section of the act posted above has a specific meaning, which makes it all hinge on the who, what, how, where and why.

To expect Gardai to understand the nuances not just of this law, but every law, and make determinations as to guilt, is not only unreasonable, it's asking the impossible. This is the very reason that courts and legal professionals exist - to tease out and debate these matters.

"If the audience is not explicitly defined"

From the Cabinet Handbook of the Dept. of the Taoiseach:

The first paragraph in 2.22 could deem Simon Harris responsible for the initial leaking of the document, as he was the person on charge of the relevant department and was ultimately responsible for it not being shared outside.

If a document is marked 'Confidential/Not for Circulation' is it OK for it to be shared/circulated to anybody outside the parties involved in it's preparation (before the document is officially published), would it be OK if Varadkar couriered a copy of it out to me at my gaff?