Handcuffed in court

Shield · 24-07-2010 10:47am #1

Just reading this story in The Indo and I notice that they were all handcuffed in court.

This could be ignorance of Irish law on my part, but is this shaky legal ground? Is the accused person not supposed to be presented to the judge as innocent until he decides they are guilty? Is it enough to say that they weren't cooperating with prison officers yesterday, so we're handcuffing them in court today?

I'm thinking Human Rights breaches will be alleged for this.

Comments?

Bosco boy · 24-07-2010 11:35am

the answer is in the article, if they behaved themselves there would not have been cuffed, the prison officers, judge, officers of the court, gardai and members of the public have a right to be protected if there is a genuine threat. the officers dealing with them are professional and are best place to make that call. The judge also agreed with them, if the judge had ordered them to be uncuffed they would have been imediately. This is not all that uncommon.

johnnyskeleton · 24-07-2010 12:43pm

psni wrote: »

Is the accused person not supposed to be presented to the judge as innocent unless he decides they are guilty?

FYP.

These men are going to be tried without a jury, perhaps on no more evidence than the opinion of a garda. Appearing handcuffed is the least of their worries.

The rule is that they cannot be put before a jury in handcuffs. A judge is presumed to be able to compartmentalise and remove the fact of their being in custody from his mind.

maidhc · 24-07-2010 1:44pm

psni wrote: »

I'm thinking Human Rights breaches will be alleged for this.

Comments?

Not the crowd to be getting worked up about Human Rights over tbh.

johnnyskeleton · 24-07-2010 4:21pm

maidhc wrote: »

Not the crowd to be getting worked up about Human Rights over tbh.

All humans have rights, including the right to a fair trial. Take that away from one person and you will eventually take it away from everyone.

nuac · 24-07-2010 5:00pm

saw a guy run amok in a court once. Took four gardai to restrain him. He terrified one of the prosecution witnesses. Gardai right to take no chances.

Delancey · 24-07-2010 5:06pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

FYP.
The rule is that they cannot be put before a jury in handcuffs. A judge is presumed to be able to compartmentalise and remove the fact of their being in custody from his mind.

This is the key point I believe - a judge is supposed to be beyond being influenced by such things . I suspect were a jury present the defence would make hay from it and possibly set up grounds for an appeal.

Turner · 24-07-2010 5:07pm

Sometimes it is necessary. And in these cases would probably have prevented these attacks.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/gardai-recovering-from-acid-attack-115713.html

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/deft-gardai-foil-attack-on-judge-in-court-2183920.html

Shield · 24-07-2010 5:25pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

FYP.

These men are going to be tried without a jury, perhaps on no more evidence than the opinion of a garda. Appearing handcuffed is the least of their worries.

The rule is that they cannot be put before a jury in handcuffs. A judge is presumed to be able to compartmentalise and remove the fact of their being in custody from his mind.

Thanks for the FYP. I worded it wrongful.

It's the jury thing that got me. I knew there was something about people appearing handcuffed in court.

We bow to your wisdom once again Mr. Skeleton.

MagicSean · 24-07-2010 5:45pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All humans have rights, including the right to a fair trial. Take that away from one person and you will eventually take it away from everyone.

Shouldnt humans have some sort of humanity in them?

dermot_sheehan · 24-07-2010 8:03pm

Practice in England and Wales appears to be it should be done as a last resort and it should be the presiding judge who decided upon application by the prosecution and not the prison service escorts.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/handcuffing_of_defendents/

johnnyskeleton · 24-07-2010 9:42pm

k_mac wrote: »

Shouldnt humans have some sort of humanity in them?

Trying to suggest that some people are not humans is a great tactic to allow genocides and other severe humanitarian disasters.

They might be guilty, they might not be, but they are definately humans and they definately deserve rights.

The_Morrigan · 24-07-2010 9:58pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They might be guilty, they might not be, but they are definately humans and they definately deserve rights.

Think deserve is the wrong word - everyone is entitled to rights, but that doesn't mean they actually deserve them. Rights are not absolute and can be taken away in certain circumstances, like these 8 guys, who were also denied their right to freedom as they weren't released on bail and have been in custody since their arrest in April.
The gardai have been dealing with them since April at least, if not before, and considering their attitude towards the court, maybe it was justified.

Bosco boy · 25-07-2010 3:30am

gabhain7 wrote: »

Practice in England and Wales appears to be it should be done as a last resort and it should be the presiding judge who decided upon application by the prosecution and not the prison service escorts.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/handcuffing_of_defendents/

it would be standard practice for the prison officers or gardai to inform the prosecution that there is a security issue with the prisioner and that they may still need to be restrained when the case is called, the prosecution will inform the judge of this and the judge can decide, judges are generally smart people with experience of the system as they have come through it as solicitors or barristors and will have seen how unpredictable an enviornment a court room can be and they dont like to take unnecessary risks. The prisoner will remain cuffed unless the judge orders if they are a risk.

skyhighflyer · 25-07-2010 6:24pm

I've nothing to add to what the above posters have said on this: the judge is presumed to be able to ignore the prejudicial effect of accused appearing in handcuffs. A jury might not be able to do so.

I suppose it's similar to how a judge can consider evidence during a voir dire which he or she might ultimately decide to exclude from consideration by the jury. The point is that the jury don't get to see the evidence but the judge can because they are presumed to be professional or detached enough to make an objective judgment about the situation.

I think it's all a matter of balance: if an accused is likely to pose a threat to himself or to others in the courtroom then if handcuffs are the only way to restrain them then they can quite legitimately be used.

However, I can distinctly remember an Irish case (possibly a number of cases) where convictions were ruled unsafe because a non-violent witness appeared before a jury in handcuffs.

Untimately though, I wouldn't like for Ireland to end up like the US where defendants routinely appear in bright orange jumpsuits, rigid handcuffs, leg shackles, belly chains and sometimes even gags or masks :eek:. I never understood how a jury was supposed to look objectively at an accused's case when everything about the accused's appearance is screaming 'criminal'.

murrayp4 · 25-07-2010 9:43pm

I think it reasonable to believe a judge can ignore the fact a person is in handcuffs. A judge, as mentioned previously, would have worked within the system for years and would be very familiar with seeing both guilty and innocent people in handcuffs (not necessarily before the court)
On the point of the American system, would I be right in saying that defendants only appear in chains and jump-suits during the arraignment and following that in their normal cloths before the jury??

Jo King · 25-07-2010 10:27pm

All of the accused in Limerick were present on a return for trial. All the Judge was required to do was see that they were served with books of evidence and give them alibi warnings before remanding to the court of trial. The accused's being in handcuffs before him could have no influence on whether they were ultimately found guilty. That judge will not be involved in the trial.

maidhc · 26-07-2010 9:57am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All humans have rights, including the right to a fair trial. Take that away from one person and you will eventually take it away from everyone.

Yes, but if those guys won't behave in court, then I'm not sure what they are hoping for. Likewise, if there is a possibility of witnesses being intimidated, they can hardly be surprised if they get shipped off to the Special Criminal Court!

Mark25 · 26-07-2010 12:16pm

I've been in court a few times recently and was watching the cases before mine. One guy was brought into the court in handcuffs and he was giving trouble to the guards. Another guy started shouting out at the judge and making threats and he was put in cuffs too. This was only the District Court so it was only the judge who saw it.

When I was in the Summons Court at the Richmond there were 2 guys with prison officers in the court and they were handcuffed and then chained to prison officers waiting for their cases (one was having a mobile phone in prison). What I thought was strange was that they went up to the front with the guard and then he took off the cuffs and the guys sat down in their seats uncuffed - but the judge had seen them in teh cuffs and having them taken off so not sure what was the point in doing it.

When I was going through court myself I got a mix up with the dates and ended up with a bench warrant. Eventhough I went to the Garda station myself I ended up getting arrested for missing court and then got transferred to the Bridewell to spend the night there and was handcuffed on the way there. So if that happens to somebody doing the right thing I'm not surprised it happens if people are causing trouble in court.

From what I saw the handcuffs that the prison people have seem bigger than the normal ones the Gardai have. I don't know what the difference is but know that the normal ones can be sore enough if they put them on tight which happened to me.

seamus · 26-07-2010 12:33pm

Mark25 wrote: »

From what I saw the handcuffs that the prison people have seem bigger than the normal ones the Gardai have. I don't know what the difference is but know that the normal ones can be sore enough if they put them on tight which happened to me.

You might have it there in one. The cuffs used by the Gardai would be short-term things, while the person is being arrested. The cuffs are removed when they're brought to the station. The cuffs used by the prison service would be worn for a little longer - while being transported, while waiting to be called and so forth, so are presumably a little more comfortable than standard Garda issue.

Hooch · 26-07-2010 1:23pm

Mark25 wrote: »

From what I saw the handcuffs that the prison people have seem bigger than the normal ones the Gardai have. I don't know what the difference is but know that the normal ones can be sore enough if they put them on tight which happened to me.

No comfort factor. The prison service use rigid handcuffs.

11VJ4vrmc0L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

AGS use chain and semi rigid cuffs

opplanet-asp-chain-identifier-steel-aluminum-colored-handcuff-restraints.png

AGS dont use rigid cuffs as they are harder than semi rigid or chain cuffs to carry on your belt.

The cuffs put on you were more than likely new.....they loosen out after a while:D

johnnyskeleton · 26-07-2010 8:01pm

maidhc wrote: »

Yes, but if those guys won't behave in court, then I'm not sure what they are hoping for.

If misbehaviour in court is a basis to take away someone's rights, then I'm amazed that any solicitor, barrister, garda, prison officer or clerk have any rights.

maidhc wrote: »

Likewise, if there is a possibility of witnesses being intimidated, they can hardly be surprised if they get shipped off to the Special Criminal Court!

So the mere possibility of witness intimidation is enough to deny rights eh?

Delancey · 26-07-2010 8:39pm

In the 1970's a married couple were on trial for the Capital Murder of a Garda - they kept shouting abuse and interrupting proceedings to the extent the Judge ordered them to be held in the cells for the rest of the trial.
Judges can pretty much do as they wish although they need to realise how their actions can be interpreted by the Court of Appeal.

Mark25 · 27-07-2010 12:29am

nice guy always wrote: »

No comfort factor. The prison service use rigid handcuffs.

AGS use chain and semi rigid cuffs

AGS dont use rigid cuffs as they are harder than semi rigid or chain cuffs to carry on your belt.

The cuffs put on you were more than likely new.....they loosen out after a while:D

You learn something new every day! Seriously it was the last type that were put on me - I think they were the same when I was arrested originally.

Do you pretty much handcuff everybody if they are arrested or being transported somewhere. I expected it when I was arrested first (was drunk) but not really when being moved from the Garda station to the Bridewell - I was had a decent chat with the Garda and did everything I was told.

I have another stupid question for you - is there any rule about how Gardai have their cuffs? I've noticed sometimes you can see them on the Garda's belt and others seem to have them in a pouch or on their belt when you can't see them at all.

MagicSean · 27-07-2010 1:04am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If misbehaviour in court is a basis to take away someone's rights, then I'm amazed that any solicitor, barrister, garda, prison officer or clerk have any rights.

So the mere possibility of witness intimidation is enough to deny rights eh?

Never seen a Garda or solicitor give the judge two fingers but if you have I'd love to hear about it.

Victor · 31-07-2010 1:02am

nice guy always wrote: »

No comfort factor. The prison service use rigid handcuffs.

I saw a guy, an I'm sure there was 20-30cm between the individual cuffs. Not sure if there was a chain or a bar. Perhaps somethings like this http://arkjournal.com/uploaded_images/Shackles-750027.jpg He was serving a sentence already though.

Our man in Havana · 31-07-2010 2:52pm

They look like leg shackles.

_JOE_ · 31-07-2010 4:36pm

k_mac wrote: »

Never seen a Garda or solicitor give the judge two fingers but if you have I'd love to hear about it.

That's not what he said...

And misbehaviour, which he did say, frequently occurs...

maidhc · 31-07-2010 5:07pm

_JOE_ wrote: »

That's not what he said...

And misbehaviour, which he did say, frequently occurs...

This debate is going nowhere if we are comparing McCarthy Dundon & Co to officers of the court.

The abovementioned idiots and their ilk were they cause of the Criminal Justice Amendment Act in the first place, and while it may be an obnoxious piece of legislation, it is better than the alternative.

cushtac · 31-07-2010 6:54pm

Mark25 wrote: »

Do you pretty much handcuff everybody if they are arrested or being transported somewhere. I expected it when I was arrested first (was drunk) but not really when being moved from the Garda station to the Bridewell - I was had a decent chat with the Garda and did everything I was told.

All prisoners should be cuffed when being moved, regardless of their attitude. I've seen more than one prisoner go from quiet compliance to violent disorder at the drop of a hat.

Mark25 wrote: »

I have another stupid question for you - is there any rule about how Gardai have their cuffs? I've noticed sometimes you can see them on the Garda's belt and others seem to have them in a pouch or on their belt when you can't see them at all.

What difference does it make??

johnnyskeleton · 02-08-2010 1:42pm

maidhc wrote: »

The abovementioned idiots and their ilk were they cause of the Criminal Justice Amendment Act in the first place, and while it may be an obnoxious piece of legislation, it is better than the alternative.

That's a fairly chilling attitude. So the government decides who is going to be convicted, and if they cannot get them under the law as it stands they introduce new legislation to put them away on. Where does that end?