Gangland Shootings part 4 - Read OP before posting - updated 30/12/23

I remember when I was practicing in the mid to late 2000’s I’d try and get into as many as John Gilligans appearances as I could. But the security and frisking at every point was so alien as to what was normally there.

His interactions with opposing counsel and the judge and sometimes his own advisers before they were given the heave ho was riveting.

But with all that in place, especially with scanners at the front entrance, there was a back entrance specifically for barristers. While you did have to have an ID card it was rarely examined to any extent and easily forged.

I was in the Special a good few times as my master was regularly briefed in membership type cases and the like.

Watching the cream of the crop barristers was the best on the job learning you could imagine. The one year Barrister at law degree was very practical and mainly roleplaying leading a witness, cross examining, doing bail applications was class, it paled into insignificance with watching the likes of Brendan Grehan and even the likes of John Rogers was like a masterclass. Knowing the pace, intonation, what not to say, jury interaction was amazing.

But the attrition rate with younger barristers is absolutely crazy. From my year only about 10% remain. And the people that remain may not be the best but have enough disposable income to last out the 8-9 years where you are practically living in poverty.

I suppose that is the argument for having the trial in the Special Criminal Court where there is no jury. It’s very difficult (I’m presuming as I never spoke to one) to disregard adverse publicity about someone or constant tabloid spreads photographing people calling them gangland when they were never prosecuted.

I’ve been involved in about 3 pre trial applications on trial fairness where in the weeks coming up to the trial there were prime time documentaries about the person. Unfortunately (if you believe that it’s impossible that the jury weren’t biased to some extent) it was always decided that the judges charge before they retire to adjudicate Would clean any adverse inferences.

But going back to the special criminal court, if the right judges are chosen then they should be able to disregard anything superfluous to the case. Judges regularly dismiss cases for plaintiffs that have numerous convictions and had history but focused on the facts.

But juries are biased. I remember my first case as a devil. Two people were on trial together, exactly the same facts, same witnesses, same sequence of events and purely based on their appearance and how they conducted themselves one for murder, and one got manslaughter.

Definitely some of the best tutors I had did not necessarily make the best barristers and vice versa, some of the best barristers were only in the zone during a case but would be quite introverted. I couldn’t do any of the Civil side and barely scraped a pass in the final civil MCQ (luckily wasn’t MCQ) the actual practical exams of civil were fine I.e negotiation, discovery etc. But I took to Criminal like a duck to water. I had quite a different life experience than some in my year as I went down at around 28 after travelling the world for 5 years and owning a dive bar for 2. Like proper rough.

but it was my master who I gained everything from. Unfortunately the criminal bar pays next to nothing until you catch a break.

From what I remember it’s 3 times more than the circuit criminal and a 1/3 more than the central criminal court.

it’s like 90/60/30.

While probably impossible to uphold its very difficult to predict the outcome of a case. In the higher courts in Ireland where a much more thorough investigation is carried out as opposed to lower courts, (how should I put this) I’ve never seen the wrong person on trial. I’ve never come across a situation like the Birmingham 6 or Guilford 4. I’m 100 not saying that in this instance as I’m not really familiar with the exact ins and outs because I haven’t been in Ireland for large parts. People are found not guilty because of technical or evidential issues rather than they are innocent. (I’m going to caveat this with this does not include any case regarding an SA or other similar trial)

in this case you have probably two of the best barristers I’ve ever seen. Brendan Grehan when I knew him was the most liked by juries and at one stage he had never lost a murder trial:(now they all got manslaughter but that’s an amazing record) not still in place. Michael O Higgins ability to get to the root of the matter, think on his feet and ability to link seemingly unconnected matters to thread together the whole thing.

But it has to be understood that the burden of proof that has to be discharged by the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. Now this is slightly easier to achieve due to the special powers I posted a few ones up.

The whole thing can fall to pieces where a witness says something unexpected. Like in statement said ‘ I saw joeguevara’ but when in the witness box says ‘ I’m nearly sure I saw joeguevara’ then there is a doubt there. When you have a load of potential witnesses that possibly have underlying issues with each other, it’s quite easy to say something out of anger or if part of it is fabricated etc that contradicts what is being relied upon.

So a case can only go ahead if based on the DPPs evidence there is a case to answer. If there is material gaps then it wouldn’t get to trial.

I seem to remember that Brendan Grehan was going to make a pre trial application to get it thrown out because of lack of sufficient evidence. I’m not sure if that’s been heard.

also this out of the blue evidence has the potential of backfiring if there is a slip up. Now I’ve seen loads of normal cases thrown out because of a fcuck up by a witness (e.g one witness in a quite disturbing case raised evidence that came to light through another person in a previous mid trial). When asked how did they know that they said ‘I heard it in the last trial that had to be stopped) that breach of naming his previous trial couldn’t be remedied as the jury couldn’t forget it.

However in this case it’s more difficult for that to occur. It’s considered that judges have the capability of putting aside misstatements or inadmissible evidence.

Its going to be fascinating but tense.