Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

That Case We Can't Mention.

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »
    So in other words: the law is an ass and as per usual in Ireland, outdated compared to modern times so Boards is doing what it can to keep the site from getting into potential legal trouble?

    Boards interpretation of the law is the problem. Fair enough if they want to protect themselves, but the trial has concluded and a judge is always considered to be above the influence of the media.

    Everyone is taking about it now, commenting on it, not just repeating the facts. It's bad for the site that discussion isn't allowed.


  • Options
    #33
    libelula
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭libelula


    seventeen sheep wrote: »
    Admins, site management/owners?

    I don't know, I don't know how this site operates. My point is that someone has messed up.

    I do think it's poor that the main discussion site in Ireland isn't allowing the main court case under discussion in Ireland to be discussed right now. When every other website is allowing it.

    I'm delighted it's not allowed. I know the family (not very well mind you) of a party involved in the case, and it's heartbreaking to read some of the details that have been sensationally and disgustingly dragged all over the media like a bloody circus.

    I, for one, think boards have treated this (and other) cases with human decency and manners that every other media outlet has cashed in on.

    Buala bós boards :)


  • Options
    #34
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    a judge is always considered to be above the influence of the media.
    Not according to the Supreme Court,s/he isn't.

    Nevertheless, strict application of the rule in cases where a life sentence is mandatory seems a bit OTT. The sentence in this case has already been determined under statute.


  • Options
    #35
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    libelula wrote: »
    I'm delighted it's not allowed. I know the family (not very well mind you) of a party involved in the case, and it's heartbreaking to read some of the details that have been sensationally and disgustingly dragged all over the media like a bloody circus.

    I, for one, think boards have treated this (and other) cases with human decency and manners that every other media outlet has cashed in on.

    Buala bós boards :)
    But people will be allowed to discuss it after the sentencing..

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94856775&postcount=1


  • Options
    #36
    murpho999
    Registered Users Posts: 28,391 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    libelula wrote: »
    I'm delighted it's not allowed. I know the family (not very well mind you) of a party involved in the case, and it's heartbreaking to read some of the details that have been sensationally and disgustingly dragged all over the media like a bloody circus.

    I, for one, think boards have treated this (and other) cases with human decency and manners that every other media outlet has cashed in on.

    Buala bós boards :)

    Are you referring today's coverage?

    As during the case the media were only reporting facts from the case, and not commenting them. Unpleasant facts, yes but facts of the case all the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Heisenberg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,511 ✭✭✭Heisenberg1


    He is a Boards moderator that's why it can't be discussed.


  • Options
    #38
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,710 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    I'm not too sure where to begin in relation to this stuff so I'll just start out by saying that the sub judice rule is in place to protect the integrity of the justice system. It protects both the accused person, the alleged victim and society in general. That is because if people were allowed to speak freely and publicly, there is a risk that this could have an influence on the outcome of the case. For example, if some evidence that the jury wasn't allowed to see is reported on or discussed publicly, there is a real risk the jurors will hear or read about it and that could have a massive impact on the outcome of the case - in other words, it could prejudice the accused person to such an extent that it directly leads to a conviction.

    Contempt of court is an overlapping but separate issue - that is where someone does something that interferes with the workings of the courts (to put it plainly). That's a crime and it's largely up to the trial judge to deal with it there and then. Public discussion of an ongoing case might not quite reach the threshold for contempt of court but it could still be enough to prejudice the accused.

    What happens when these things are discussed publicly is that the defence will invariably point to the ongoing reporting and debate as being something that necessarily effected the outcome of the case. No one is necessarily "liable" for the prejudice - it's usually more of a cumulative thing where reporting is so widespread and discussion so loose that in combination, this meant that the tribunal (judge + jury) must have been effected by it. Even if one person or outlet was deemed to have been the one who prejudiced the jury, the likelihood is that they would not be brought before the court to answer for it, unless they were also in contempt.

    Also, you can't be sued by anyone for contempt - you can for defamation but I'm not getting into that here because I don't believe it's directly relevant in this case. What is important to say is that a take down notice, as some have suggested, is utterly useless regarding cases of prejudice. Once it is posted/printed/uttered, that's that. It's prejudiced the accused. No take backs.

    So, the reality is that the ban is in place on boards not because boards can't fund litigation where litigation is unlikely but because of the principle of it. I personally certainly wouldn't like to have something I'd posted here being raised by someone on trial as evidence of prejudice and I doubt many others would like to feel like they contributed to either (a) effecting the case one way or another, or (b) seeing someone they believe to be guilty get an aquittal.

    As for the other outlets who have reported on the case or allowed discussion, let them at it. If they're happy enough to risk the consequences of openly prejudicing an ongoing case, that's up to them. Boards management or whoever have obviously decided that the risk isn't worth it. FWIW, I agree with that decision because I've seen how incapable some people are of keeping their shit together when it comes to discussions about this sort of thing.

    Regarding the actual case at hand, whilst the jury have made a decision, there is still sentencing. I agree that lifting the ban should be considered at this point because as others have pointed out, the judge can only do one thing. Having said that, though, I fully expect that the verdict will be appealed fully and that probably has a bearing on whoever is making this decision on boards.ie's behalf.


  • Options
    #39
    murpho999
    Registered Users Posts: 28,391 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Really disagree with this.

    Case is complete apart from sentencing. Jury is discharged as verdict has been reached so cannot be influenced.

    The only person left is the judge and his sentence will be handed down within the confines of the law and media can have no influence on that.

    I really think Boards are misinterpreting sub judice rules and being over cautious. An appeal is also an entirely separate process and cannot be affected by what is said about the previous case.


  • Options
    #40
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,865 ✭✭✭✭January


    People can discuss it in 23 days. Deal with it.

    As an aside, if there is an appeal, does the sub judice rule apply again?


  • Options
    #41
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,344 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Come Monday I presume there will be people in the Boards office who can comment on the specifics here. The local mods are simply doing what's expected of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    seventeen sheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭seventeen sheep


    Heisenberg1 wrote: »
    He is a Boards moderator that's why it can't be discussed.

    Again if this is true (and it's actually quite a plausible and possible explanation) I'd actually understand the reasoning, but it should be openly explained WHY it can't be discussed on Boards when no such limitations seem to apply on any other sites.


  • Options
    #43
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    January wrote: »
    People can discuss it in 23 days. Deal with it.

    As an aside, if there is an appeal, does the sub judice rule apply again?

    That attitude stinks to be honest. It's a legitimate question to ask why the case cannot be discussed when there are no court proceedings that can be influenced.
    Once a jury has given its verdict and sentencing is a mandatory sentence, how could anything said here change or influence the outcome?

    You can't really appeal the outcome of a jury trial btw. An appeal has to be made on a point of law and the outcome of this will be determined by a judge.


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Spear wrote: »
    He's not yet sentenced, the legal process is on-going, and it's still considered sub-judice and hence can't be discussed.

    This is bull****... I am trying to read about case in Ireland and you are only place in country not discussing it?

    Maybe you want to wait until your Graham is finished his sentence before you open for discussion? "Just to be sure", like you say.


  • Options
    #45
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    So, the reality is that the ban is in place on boards not because boards can't fund litigation where litigation is unlikely but because of the principle of it. I personally certainly wouldn't like to have something I'd posted here being raised by someone on trial as evidence of prejudice
    I fully expect that the verdict will be appealed fully and that probably has a bearing on whoever is making this decision on boards.ie's behalf.
    Adverse publicity that arises after the case has passed from the seisin of the jury is immaterial to any putative appeal regarding adverse pre-trial publicity.

    The pre-trial publicity argument could only possibly have relevance insofar as it relates to the jury. Since the jury has been discharged, the possibility of adverse publicity is also discharged, since a life sentence is provided for under statute.

    The sub judice rule still applies in the instant case, since the case is live, albeit the rule is effectively without any application whatever. But questions of prejudicing the trial no longer applies.

    *edit: Having said that, I don't blame boards for prohibiting commentary until things die down. Any thread on this would be a train wreck for the mods.

    Newspaper editors can't even contain themselves, I dread to think how anonymous internet posters will react.


  • Options
    #46
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Spear wrote: »
    He's not yet sentenced, the legal process is on-going, and it's still considered sub-judice and hence can't be discussed.

    The matter is not sub-judice anymore. Dwyer has been convicted and the only sentence is mandatory life sentence for murder.

    There can be nothing said now than can prejudice the matter.


  • Options
    #47
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭McCrack


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    I'm not too sure where to begin in relation to this stuff so I'll just start out by saying that the sub judice rule is in place to protect the integrity of the justice system. It protects both the accused person, the alleged victim and society in general. That is because if people were allowed to speak freely and publicly, there is a risk that this could have an influence on the outcome of the case. For example, if some evidence that the jury wasn't allowed to see is reported on or discussed publicly, there is a real risk the jurors will hear or read about it and that could have a massive impact on the outcome of the case - in other words, it could prejudice the accused person to such an extent that it directly leads to a conviction.

    Contempt of court is an overlapping but separate issue - that is where someone does something that interferes with the workings of the courts (to put it plainly). That's a crime and it's largely up to the trial judge to deal with it there and then. Public discussion of an ongoing case might not quite reach the threshold for contempt of court but it could still be enough to prejudice the accused.

    What happens when these things are discussed publicly is that the defence will invariably point to the ongoing reporting and debate as being something that necessarily effected the outcome of the case. No one is necessarily "liable" for the prejudice - it's usually more of a cumulative thing where reporting is so widespread and discussion so loose that in combination, this meant that the tribunal (judge + jury) must have been effected by it. Even if one person or outlet was deemed to have been the one who prejudiced the jury, the likelihood is that they would not be brought before the court to answer for it, unless they were also in contempt.

    Also, you can't be sued by anyone for contempt - you can for defamation but I'm not getting into that here because I don't believe it's directly relevant in this case. What is important to say is that a take down notice, as some have suggested, is utterly useless regarding cases of prejudice. Once it is posted/printed/uttered, that's that. It's prejudiced the accused. No take backs.

    So, the reality is that the ban is in place on boards not because boards can't fund litigation where litigation is unlikely but because of the principle of it. I personally certainly wouldn't like to have something I'd posted here being raised by someone on trial as evidence of prejudice and I doubt many others would like to feel like they contributed to either (a) effecting the case one way or another, or (b) seeing someone they believe to be guilty get an aquittal.

    As for the other outlets who have reported on the case or allowed discussion, let them at it. If they're happy enough to risk the consequences of openly prejudicing an ongoing case, that's up to them. Boards management or whoever have obviously decided that the risk isn't worth it. FWIW, I agree with that decision because I've seen how incapable some people are of keeping their shit together when it comes to discussions about this sort of thing.

    Regarding the actual case at hand, whilst the jury have made a decision, there is still sentencing. I agree that lifting the ban should be considered at this point because as others have pointed out, the judge can only do one thing. Having said that, though, I fully expect that the verdict will be appealed fully and that probably has a bearing on whoever is making this decision on boards.ie's behalf.

    Yes but none of these considerations apply anymore. Dwyer as I said in a previous post has been convicted. And so what if Dwyer appeals his conviction - his grounds of appeal will not rest on anything said here or anywhere after conviction so that argument is not valid at all.

    By not allowing people discuss this case Boards is doing its members and reputation a disservice. I really think the powers that be need to reconsider their stance on this.


  • Options
    #48
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    Heisenberg1 wrote: »
    He is a Boards moderator that's why it can't be discussed.
    I saw this mentioned on another discussion forum (parenting in nature) earlier today.

    To be frank, it's not a very effective proposition just to say "The reason why is because of x" without anything further. How do you have this information? How do you know that's definitely the reason for it not being discussed? It's fair enough to suspect something, but suspicion doesn't mean it's true.
    Why would Boards not allow discussion of a person who did something like this simply because they moderated here?


  • Options
    #49
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,710 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Adverse publicity that arises after the case has passed from the seisin of the jury is immaterial to any putative appeal regarding adverse pre-trial publicity.

    The pre-trial publicity argument could only possibly have relevance insofar as it relates to the jury. Since the jury has been discharged, the possibility of adverse publicity is also discharged, since a life sentence is provided for under statute.

    The sub judice rule still applies in the instant case, since the case is live, albeit the rule is effectively without any application whatever. But questions of prejudicing the trial no longer applies.
    I am not disputing that in the least but I'm not sure that this level of discussion is helpful where the vast majority of readers have no legal background. That's why I gave very general reasoning behind the rule and ban here.

    I also pointed out that it might need reassessing by the higher ups given what's happened. I'm not privy to whatever discussion has led to the moderators being told to lock the discussion down but I understand it's a standing instruction.

    It might be reviewed on Monday when the staff are back to work.

    If the result of an appeal is retrial, all of this discussion becomes relevant all of a sudden.


  • Options
    #50
    United Chester Men
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭United Chester Men


    I think as a Public Forum with so much traffic through it's threads, the management team should ready themselves for such scenarios with proper legal advice. It is unfair to put the voluntary (unpaid??) moderators in such a position as they are only following instructions (instructions which I personally disagree with considering the TRIAL is over and all that remains is sentencing, thus removing the sub judice rule.) Of course I am open to correction here but there doesn't seem to be any proper reasoning as to why this decision to block discussion has arisen) It creates a bad atmosphere between moderators and users and causes bans, warnings and users departing to other such sites.

    I would have assumed such a high profile social media site would be well versed in its obligations.


  • Options
    #51
    libelula
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭libelula


    riffmongous wrote: »
    But people will be allowed to discuss it after the sentencing..

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94856775&postcount=1

    That's grand, because by then the sensationaliam will have died down, everybody will get their gossipy kicks from the next shocking news story, and it won't be half as fresh and scandalous. This fact makes me happy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Heisenberg1 wrote: »
    He is a Boards moderator that's why it can't be discussed.

    You do realise that Boards hasn't allowed discussion of on going court cases from a while before Elaine O'Hara was murdered, right?


  • Options
    #53
    Deank
    Registered Users Posts: 7,238 ✭✭✭Deank


    humanji wrote: »
    You do realise that Boards hasn't allowed discussion of on going court cases from a while before Elaine O'Hara was murdered, right?

    So no comment on whether he was actually a boards mod then?


  • Options
    #54
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    humanji wrote: »
    You do realise that Boards hasn't allowed discussion of on going court cases from a while before Elaine O'Hara was murdered, right?
    I'm not viewing the Boards moderator thing as a reason for discussion not being permitted (bit too conspiracy theory-ish - Boards hardly wants to protect someone like GD just because he may have volunteered here) but I can see why people are wondering why discussion of it is allowed elsewhere now that the verdict is in, but not on Boards.


  • Options
    #55
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Deank wrote: »
    So no comment on whether he was actually a boards mod then?
    No idea, to be honest.
    Feline Groovy wrote: »
    I'm not viewing the Boards moderator thing as a reason for discussion not being permitted (bit too conspiracy theory-ish - Boards hardly wants to protect someone like GD just because he may have volunteered here) but I can see why people are wondering why discussion of it is allowed elsewhere now that the verdict is in, but not on Boards.

    It's a valid enough reason that's been given. It's silly, but that's the way the law is. Even in the mainstream media there's aspects of the case that they refuse to go into.


  • Options
    #56
    seventeen sheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭seventeen sheep


    humanji wrote: »
    It's a valid enough reason that's been given. It's silly, but that's the way the law is. Even in the mainstream media there's aspects of the case that they refuse to go into.

    But I'm not seeing that? As far as the mainstream media are concerned, there are no holds barred now that the verdict has been given. I'm seeing very personal and subjective opinions on every new site - websites where, up until now, they've been pointedly reporting the case on a very factual basis.

    All the other websites have obeyed the law as the court case was ongoing, and are now allowing comments etc.

    It's strange that Boards are making the website stand out as the one site that interprets (misinterprets?) the rules differently.


  • Options
    #57
    Deank
    Registered Users Posts: 7,238 ✭✭✭Deank


    seventeen sheep wrote: »
    But I'm not seeing that? As far as the mainstream media are concerned, there are no holds barred now that the verdict has been given. I'm seeing very personal and subjective opinions on every new site - websites where, up until now, they've been pointedly reporting the case on a very factual basis.

    All the other websites have obeyed the law as the court case was ongoing, and are now allowing comments etc.

    It's strange that Boards are making the website stand out as the one site that interprets (misinterprets?) the rules differently.

    It's like mentioning MCD all over again :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #58
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    seventeen sheep wrote: »
    But I'm not seeing that? As far as the mainstream media are concerned, there are no holds barred now that the verdict has been given. I'm seeing very personal and subjective opinions on every new site - websites where, up until now, they've been pointedly reporting the case on a very factual basis.

    All the other websites have obeyed the law as the court case was ongoing, and are now allowing comments etc.

    It's strange that Boards are making the website stand out as the one site that interprets (misinterprets?) the rules differently.
    The thing is, the law apparently says it relates to cases before the courts, which this case is. While I think discussion should be allowed, if the law says it can't, then it can't. Regardless of what other sites do. There's no point saying other sites do it, so Boards should. That's not a valid defence in any court if Boards were to be sued or come under some sort of legal scrutiny.

    It's a safe bet that Boards has been in contact with their legal reps on this, so they'll clarify probably on Monday when they're back in the office. Until then, there's not a whole heap any of us can do, and the mods will have to continue using the current site's policy on the matter.


  • Options
    #59
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    seventeen sheep wrote: »
    But I'm not seeing that? As far as the mainstream media are concerned, there are no holds barred now that the verdict has been given. I'm seeing very personal and subjective opinions on every new site - websites where, up until now, they've been pointedly reporting the case on a very factual basis.

    All the other websites have obeyed the law as the court case was ongoing, and are now allowing comments etc.

    It's strange that Boards are making the website stand out as the one site that interprets (misinterprets?) the rules differently.

    "foaming at the mouth" would be putting it mildly. It took me completely by surprise the language and tone being employed (and being employed so widely).

    Can't blame the lads for carrying out orders over the weekend though.


  • Options
    #60
    seventeen sheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭seventeen sheep


    Nodin wrote: »
    Can't blame the lads for carrying out orders over the weekend though.

    This case didn't come out of nowhere ... I don't blame the moderators for following instructions, but something has gone wrong somewhere. Surely instructions were given very well in advance.

    If it was legal for this case to be openly discussed following the verdict, no reason it shouldn't be discussed on this website. If it's illegal, I'm interested to hear boards.ie position on how the law was violated by everyone else but obeyed by them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,060 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Deank wrote: »
    It's like mentioning MCD all over again :rolleyes:

    The MCD thing was exceptional and kinda understandable though.

    That's not really the case here. There are countless threads started about people who have just been convicted of crimes and this worry about appeals processes etc is never used as justification for completely shutting down discussion.

    Anyway, imo any thread would turn to shit in no time. I'm actually kind of appalled by how it's being discussed and picked over in mainstream media. Some idiots on NewsTalk earlier moaning about a headline in the Irish Times yet spending an hour discussing the same thing!

    I don't think that just because vultures like that are talking about it that Boards should necessarily allow it here.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement