Killed two children, safe in Ireland

Hungarian

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts-refuse-to-extradite-man-in-child-death-crash-995625.html

He drove at speeds exceeding 80 km/h in a 40 km/h zone, lost control of his Volvo, and killed 4 year old Marton, and 1.5 year old Petra.

By the interpretation of the Supreme Court, he did not flee. He appealed at the Hungarian authorities to get his passport back to visit his family. He returned, but "failed" to surrender his passport, and left immediately as his job duty 'happened' to be over.

No, he did not flee. Just happens to be back in Ireland, in an upscale community in Cairn Manor, Ratouth, instead of spending his 18 month sentence for killing two children.

As he did not "flee", he is not extradited, so he'll continue to evade prison.

What's left is public outrage.

Hellm0

I find this sickening, that man should have gotten the death penalty.

CantGetNoSleep

Why did he go back to Hungary?

Why didn't they arrest him / seize his passport while he was there?

Hungarian

OK, here is my opinion. Yes, there may be the naivity of the Hungarian authorities -- the guy begged to get his passport back to visit a family event, arguing about his parents seeing his children, blah-blah. Then, he returned from the familiy event, but arranged so that his position at Irish Life Insurance in Hungary be terminated, so, even though he should have surrended his passport, he moved back home -- even before the trial began. So, he could argue that he legally left the country as his position was terminated, and he had his passport back, so he was not "fleeing". During the trial he was duly represented by one of the best law firms in Hungary -- by Hungarian law as long as you are represented legally, you do not have to be present at the trial. There was no reason for the authorities to issue a search warrant for him until the verdict came.

I think the Hungarian authorities had no doubt that he would have to show up for his sentence as long as he is in the EU, and never would have thought that such technicalities in the interpretation of "fleeing" and wordings in the EU search warrant would allow someone to escape prison.

So here is my opinion. I don't doubt that there could be a technical interpretation of EU law and EU search warrants so that the way he left the country doesn't formally comply with the wordings, but I always though English based law is strong on something called "common sense". This seems to be missing here.

Certainly my opinion is that if it stays that way justice is not served.

I don't know what was the real motive behind the Irish Supreme Court's decision, but I suspect it could partially be a misunderstood role to protect the interest of an Irish citizen against a legal system of some backward eastern country.

Third, I wonder what the Hungarian authorities will do. I suspect -- other than maybe trying to go to the Hague court -- they will consider the option for bail for other Irish citizens in perspective of this case. I wouldn't be surprised that any other Irish citizen getting into any minor legal trouble will see enourmous bails set as the authorities will no longer assume that they can expect the Irish Republic to cooperate. This is not a revenge, but a practical change in expectations.

Hungarian

More background info.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/fd7fbd2d0e422eed802573fc005307fe?OpenDocument

Note that the Supreme Court doesn't deny the fact that Mr. Tobin has killed two children through negligent driving. Nor do they deny the fact that the legal proceedings in Hungary were "meticulous" and Mr. Tobin had due representation during the trial, on which he was voluntarily absent.

However, they found that based on the wordings that can interpret the word "fled" in such a way that it does not apply to how Mr. Tobin has left Hungary (despite the Minister of Justice arguing to the contrary), and therefore they do not have to extradite him.

So, he is free.

Where is common sense here?

spurious

Hungarian wrote: »

Where is common sense here?

There is none.

Of course had it been a Hungarian man who killed two Irish children on Irish roads the crowds would be baying for blood and ranting about lower driving standards etc..

It's disgraceful.

johnnyskeleton

First of all, if you wanted to know why the courts reached this decision you could have posted in legal discussion. If you wanted to discuss the right and wrong of the European Arrest Warrant then politics would have been more suitable. By posting in Humanities, I can only assume that you just want to have a rant, not based on what the court decided, but based on the tag line "dead kids, man free, injustice" or whatever.

Hungarian wrote: »

OK, here is my opinion. Yes, there may be the naivity of the Hungarian authorities -- the guy begged to get his passport back to visit a family event, arguing about his parents seeing his children, blah-blah. Then, he returned from the familiy event, but arranged so that his position at Irish Life Insurance in Hungary be terminated, so, even though he should have surrended his passport, he moved back home -- even before the trial began. So, he could argue that he legally left the country as his position was terminated, and he had his passport back, so he was not "fleeing".

Don't downplay the mistakes of the Hungarian authorities. Hundreds of people have been surrendered under the EAW to other countries without a problem. They should have imposed an obligation on him not to leave the country. They didn't even have to take away his passport, because if he swore a bail bond to remain in Hungary then by leaving he would have fled.

Hungarian wrote: »

I think the Hungarian authorities had no doubt that he would have to show up for his sentence as long as he is in the EU, and never would have thought that such technicalities in the interpretation of "fleeing" and wordings in the EU search warrant would allow someone to escape prison.

That's their own look out. They didn't try to stop him leaving in any shape or form. They should have read more about the European Arrest Warrant and not just assumed that it would be alright. You haven't come out and said it, but it seems that you are a Hungarian citizen and you want to blame the Irish Courts for what you see as an injustice, but don't try to ignore that the Hungarian authorities let this happen.

Hungarian wrote: »

So here is my opinion. I don't doubt that there could be a technical interpretation of EU law and EU search warrants so that the way he left the country doesn't formally comply with the wordings, but I always though English based law is strong on something called "common sense". This seems to be missing here.

It's not English based law. It's a European led system, and Ireland has to apply this as closely as possible. The definition of fleeing is the same throughout Europe, so it's not just a quirky Irish interpretation. The European Arrest Warrant Act is not a penal statute, but it is close on, and so therefore must be contstrued strictly. That means you can't say "what they intended was this" or "the common sense interpretation is...", you have to go with what is in the legislation.

Hungarian wrote: »

Certainly my opinion is that if it stays that way justice is not served.

The EAW system is new and was brought in by a hasty EU after 9/11. It's riddled with mistakes, some of which are patched up by the courts, and by the government but some cannot be. If the EAW had been amended prior to this case, or if the Hungarian authorities had acted differently then they could have had him surrendered. They can still apply for extradition under the old system if they like. They might be able to come again with a fresh warrant, that remains to be seen.

Hungarian wrote: »

I don't know what was the real motive behind the Irish Supreme Court's decision, but I suspect it could partially be a misunderstood role to protect the interest of an Irish citizen against a legal system of some backward eastern country.

The motive of the Supreme Court was to interpret the law as it stands. They have no control over the legislation, they cannot amended it or do anything other than interpret it as it is. The people who drafted it made a mistake, and this is the result. The Hungarian Authorities were also quite lax in the way they handled the case. You seem determined to attribute some kind of corruption or racisim to the Irish Courts where there is none. I suggest that you read the judgement if you want to know what the court's reasons were.

Hungarian wrote: »

Third, I wonder what the Hungarian authorities will do. I suspect -- other than maybe trying to go to the Hague court -- they will consider the option for bail for other Irish citizens in perspective of this case. I wouldn't be surprised that any other Irish citizen getting into any minor legal trouble will see enourmous bails set as the authorities will no longer assume that they can expect the Irish Republic to cooperate. This is not a revenge, but a practical change in expectations.

Stop trying to take your anger out against Ireland, the Irish Courts and Irish Citizens. It is not our fault, it is due to a defect in the EAW system. The EAW system is unfair enough as it is, it is more akin to rendition than extradition. But your repeated attempts to pin the blame on the Irish, in an Irish forum of all places, is just racism.

johnnyskeleton

spurious wrote: »

There is none.

What's that based on? The courts can't simply make up the law and say "that's the way it should have been written". If they did that there wouldn't be much common sense either.

spurious wrote: »

Of course had it been a Hungarian man who killed two Irish children on Irish roads the crowds would be baying for blood and ranting about lower driving standards etc..

But we would have made bail conditions that 1) the person turn up for trial, 2) the person does not leave the jurisdiction withtout the leave of the court, and will return when requested 3) surrender their passport if necessary or, if they believed that the person was likely to flee and never come back, they would remand them in custody.

The lazy way in which the Hungarian Authorities went about it is the cause of the problem, it has nothing to do with the Irish courts, sympathy or anything like that.

And by the by, the Irish courts require that someone be present at their trial, and the criteria of fleeing only arises when someone has been convicted and is about to be sentenced. If the Hungarian authorities sought a bench warrant when he didn't turn up for trial (like the Irish courts, and most european courts would do) there wouldn't have been this problem.

It's disgraceful.

Is it a disgrace to anyone in particular, or is it just disgraceful in an Evening Herald style vaccuum?

Hungarian

I am not downplaying the mistakes of the Hungarian authorities. I am making my points in Hungarian forums about that, it would be useless here. Just as it is useless and futile to be ranting about the Irish Supreme Court on the Hungarian forums.

It's not English based law. It's a European led system, and Ireland has to apply this as closely as possible. The definition of fleeing is the same throughout Europe, so it's not just a quirky Irish interpretation. The European Arrest Warrant Act is not a penal statute, but it is close on, and so therefore must be contstrued strictly. That means you can't say "what they intended was this" or "the common sense interpretation is...", you have to go with what is in the legislation.

I am talking about the Irish Supreme Court, not the EAW when I am looking for the traditional "common sense" of English based law. The "intention" of the lawmaker is something taken into account in numerous cases, but the Supreme Court decided that a strict literal interpretation is more appropriate in this particular case. You seem to indicate that they had no choice but to take that position; I think we will not agree on that...

Note that it was the Irish Minister of Justice in person who actually appealed after the extradition was denied in the first place, arguing that the word "fled" can apply here, so not all in the legal system thought that such a literal interpretation is the only appropriate here.

By posting in Humanities, I can only assume that you just want to have a rant, not based on what the court decided, but based on the tag line "dead kids, man free, injustice" or whatever

I posted here because I do understand that the Supreme Court's decision is defendable from a strict legal point (although I argue that the opposite interpretation, that of the Minister would be also defendable from a legal point). I didn't deny that I am Hungarian by origin (hence the nickname, never tried to hide this). I am not ranting on the Irish people, Irish citizens, or the Irish Courts in general: I am ranting about one very specific decision by the Supreme Court. I also think the law is ultimately there to provide justice -- and when it is not, something is broken. So, yes, "dead kids, man free, injustice" -- ultimately isn't really the case here?

Hungarian

The motive of the Supreme Court was to interpret the law as it stands. They have no control over the legislation, they cannot amended it or do anything other than interpret it as it is. The people who drafted it made a mistake, and this is the result. The Hungarian Authorities were also quite lax in the way they handled the case. You seem determined to attribute some kind of corruption or racisim to the Irish Courts where there is none. I suggest that you read the judgement if you want to know what the court's reasons were.

Oh, I owe you the explanation on why I made the comment that they seem to have misinterpreted their role in this case as "protecting an Irish citizen" from an uncivilized country's legal system. Yes, I read the Supreme Court's explanation. I couldn't help noticing that they went into details on "facts" that may be casting some doubts on the fairness of the Hungarian trial about dismissed translations and other "relevant facts". On the other hand, I missed seeing and exploring details of the "arrangements" by which Mr. Tobin was allowed to leave the country. In my view, and you seem to share it, the only role of the Supreme Court was to decide if he "fled" or if he didn't "flee". What he hell was the purpose on going into those details -- especially when at the end they concluded that there is no allegation that any of those "facts" had an effect on the effectiveness of Mr. Tobin's defence? Why is this relevant at all, when, as you say, their role was "was to interpret the EAW law as it stands"? On the other hand, I doubt that there was nothing at least implicitely in those "arrangements" between Mr. Tobin and the Hungarian authorities that called for him to be at the service of the Hungarian authorities when needed. I am sure that the bail also had some conditions attached to it. Am I wrong in thinking that carefully examining the wording of those "arrangements" to see if there is any explicit or implicit in there, and pointing out line by line that he didn't break any of the court orders a whole lot more relevant in determining if he "fled" or not, than dismissed translations by the lawyer's daughter?

johnnyskeleton

Hungarian wrote: »

Just as it is useless and futile to be ranting about the Irish Supreme Court on the Hungarian forums.

It's futile to rant in serious forums. You can rant all you want in After Hours

Hungarian wrote: »

I am talking about the Irish Supreme Court, not the EAW when I am looking for the traditional "common sense" of English based law. The "intention" of the lawmaker is something taken into account in numerous cases, but the Supreme Court decided that a strict literal interpretation is more appropriate in this particular case. You seem to indicate that they had no choice but to take that position; I think we will not agree on that...

1. The intention of the legislator is only used to interpret a statute where the meaning is ambiguous (i.e. there are more than 1 interpretation), or where the wording does not make sense at all (i.e. clerical errors). In any event, the primary source used to interpret the intention of the legislature is the act itself, if it act is clear and there is only one real interpretation, the courts cannot look behind that. In this case, it is abundantly clear that the legislature intended that fled be part of section 10(d) of the EAW Act, 2003 (as amended by s.71 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, 2005) and the court simply can't ignore that.

2. The EAW while not a penal (i.e. criminal) law, is quite similar, and there is a principle of Irish law that penal acts should be construed strictly. The reason for this is that if you are going to do something which will have drastic consequences to someone, you must have a very precise legal right to do so. If there is an ambiguity in a civil law, the courts have scope to try and reach the most just or common sense result. However, with criminal or quasi-criminal matters, the need for precision is of the utmost importance.

3. The EAW is a Europe-wide system and part of the reason behind it is to bring all the various legal systems across different EU countries into line. So while the Irish government has been criticised by not implementing EU law correctly, the Irish Courts would come under even more criticism if they were to unilaterally decide how the EAW should be phrased. Apart from anything else, they would be imposing their views over those of the EU.

Hungarian wrote: »

Note that it was the Irish Minister of Justice in person who actually appealed after the extradition was denied in the first place, arguing that the word "fled" can apply here, so not all in the legal system thought that such a literal interpretation is the only appropriate here.

Just to be clear:
1. The Minister for Justice (MJELR) is the applicant in all EAWs, so he is the only person who can appeal.
2. It is the office of the MJELR and not the Minister himself who appeals, and the office is part of government. The MJELR is therefore not in the legal system in that he represents the state and applies for a surrender order.
3. There was another case MJELR v H [2007] IEHC 202 (22nd May, 2007) where the High Court found that the Minister could in that situation argue section 10(b) (as amended) instead of section 10(d) (as amended) and thus the problem could have been resolved.

The MJELR had to argue that "fled" could apply, because that's his function.

Hungarian wrote: »

I posted here because I do understand that the Supreme Court's decision is defendable from a strict legal point (although I argue that the opposite interpretation, that of the Minister would be also defendable from a legal point). I didn't deny that I am Hungarian by origin (hence the nickname, never tried to hide this). I am not ranting on the Irish people, Irish citizens, or the Irish Courts in general: I am ranting about one very specific decision by the Supreme Court. I also think the law is ultimately there to provide justice -- and when it is not, something is broken. So, yes, "dead kids, man free, injustice" -- ultimately isn't really the case here?

Why are you ranting about the Supreme Court when you accept that you do understand how it's decision was defendable from a strict legal point?

The problem with looking at it from that point of view is that is ignoring a major part. Dead kids is a start, the man going (or not going) to jail is the end. You are skipping the middle and the middle is the whole legal process. That is where justice must be done, not anywhere else. The courts take the problem, bring it though the system and it ends with a result. It is wrong to say justice is not done if someone is acquitted of a criminal offence. To say that you would have to show an injustice in the courts process. Justice is done if a person is treated fairly by the system and it produces a result. To say the result is wrong is a different kind of justice, media or mob justice.

What you seem to be saying is that any process whereby this person does not end up in jail is a failure of justice, but that misses the point entirely. A predetermined result is not justice.

johnnyskeleton

Hungarian wrote: »

I couldn't help noticing that they went into details on "facts" that may be casting some doubts on the fairness of the Hungarian trial about dismissed translations and other "relevant facts"....On the other hand, I doubt that there was nothing at least implicitely in those "arrangements" between Mr. Tobin and the Hungarian authorities that called for him to be at the service of the Hungarian authorities when needed. I am sure that the bail also had some conditions attached to it. Am I wrong in thinking that carefully examining the wording of those "arrangements" to see if there is any explicit or implicit in there, and pointing out line by line that he didn't break any of the court orders a whole lot more relevant in determining if he "fled" or not, than dismissed translations by the lawyer's daughter?

Three things:

1. You are imputing a sinister meaning to the recital of the facts in relation to the lawyer's daughter. At that stage of the judgement, the court is merely reciting the facts as they were presented before the court. Usually, this will mean that lawyers for the MJELR stood up and said all of that and the court simply put it into the judgement verbatum. It is not the operative part of the judgement.
2. The court can only deal with arguments and facts put before it. If they didn't go into a detailed discussion of whether there was an implicit or explicit arrangement, it is probably because it wasn't argued by MJELR before the court.
3. Fundamentally, the respondent was not subject to bail or any other restriction on his movement. If he was brought before a Hungarian court and told you must pay €100 bail and promise to turn up in court for your trial, the situation would have been completely different. It is even arguable that if he was on bail and didn't turn up for trial he would be considered to have fled only when he refused to return to Hungary. But they didn't impose any such restriction on him, so he had no obligation to stay in Hungary. Therefore he did not flee.

So yes, you're wrong. The Irish Courts have surrendered hundreds of people under the EAW; they have surrendered several Irish people, and they have refused the surrender of people from other countries, so there is no point trying to find an ulterior motive for the Supreme Court's decision.

Hungarian

What you seem to be saying is that any process whereby this person does not end up in jail is a failure of justice, but that misses the point entirely. A predetermined result is not justice.

I understand how you see this, but no, that's not exactly what I am saying. What I seem to be saying is that the legal system (of both countries together) ended up with a trial, that is considered fair and meticulous by both sudes, and by that trial the man is found guilty, but due to some technicalities, he doesn't have to serve his sentence. It is especially annoying to see that this technicality involved the Hungarian authorities taking humanitarian points into consideration when they waived the guy's restraining order to stay in Hungary to let him go back to a family event and let his parents see his kids. The message is: if the authorities are stupid enough to fall for such a "trick", and go beyond being a heartless burocratic mass, they are entitled to run the risk of losing the guy, and we will assist for that. That's a bad message.

Yes, the process is in the middle, but the law and public expectations go hand in hand. As an example, having a law that fines someone [proven to be] killing children to $10 while imposing 10 ys. to someone [proven to be] steeling a bread out of poverty would be considered "bad" by the society. In this case the end result is quite to the contrary of society's expectation of justice being served.

3. Fundamentally, the respondent was not subject to bail or any other restriction on his movement. If he was brought before a Hungarian court and told you must pay €100 bail and promise to turn up in court for your trial, the situation would have been completely different. It is even arguable that if he was on bail and didn't turn up for trial he would be considered to have fled only when he refused to return to Hungary. But they didn't impose any such restriction on him, so he had no obligation to stay in Hungary. Therefore he did not flee.

You are assuming that he was not on bail, and that's wrong. He was, in fact he still is on a bail of 500 000 HUF, which is about 2000 EUR. I would be curious to see what the conditions of that bail were. I am sure he didn't get this 500 000 HUF back, so he is breaking some court order -- by knowing something about the Hungarian system, I assume to show up for the sentence, as you don't necessarily need to show up for the trial. I'll ask about the details of that in Hungary, but why is this fact not discussed in detail in this decision (either pro or con) -- as something a lot more relevant to decide if he "fled" or not than those "facts" that were recited? Did the Hungarian authorities fail to provide pertinent details to MJELR or MJELR to the Supreme Court here?

Usually, this will mean that lawyers for the MJELR stood up and said all of that and the court simply put it into the judgement verbatum.

OK, I reiterate: I get the feeling that this proceedings was mistaken for representing the interest of an Irish citizen against another country's legal system from the wrong emphasis of facts presented in this decision. OK, if it was not the Supreme Court, then ask my question differently: why did the MJELR find it important to present those facts, instead of the details of those "arrangements" or the 500000 HUF bail that should have been a lot more relevant? To find the right interpretation of "fled", you really need to find the interpretation of those very court orders and "arrangements". Whose job is it to do that, and why is so little mentioned about them?

3. There was another case MJELR v H [2007] IEHC 202 (22nd May, 2007) where the High Court found that the Minister could in that situation argue section 10(b) (as amended) instead of section 10(d) (as amended) and thus the problem could have been resolved.

Can you elaborate this?

johnnyskeleton

Hungarian wrote: »

I understand how you see this, but no, that's not exactly what I am saying. What I seem to be saying is that the legal system (of both countries together) ended up with a trial, that is considered fair and meticulous by both sudes, and by that trial the man is found guilty, but due to some technicalities, he doesn't have to serve his sentence. It is especially annoying to see that this technicality involved the Hungarian authorities taking humanitarian points into consideration when they waived the guy's restraining order to stay in Hungary to let him go back to a family event and let his parents see his kids. The message is: if the authorities are stupid enough to fall for such a "trick", and go beyond being a heartless burocratic mass, they are entitled to run the risk of losing the guy, and we will assist for that. That's a bad message.

The much greater principle is that no one shall be punished save in due course of law. That's the essence of justice. It's not his fault that the EU made a mistake. If the Hungarian authorities placed no restrictions on him leaving the country then that is not his fault either. It was no trick; they did not ask him to stay in Hungary, and I'm not sure they even charged him with a criminal offence until after he left the country.

Hungarian wrote: »

Yes, the process is in the middle, but the law and public expectations go hand in hand. As an example, having a law that fines someone [proven to be] killing children to $10 while imposing 10 ys. to someone [proven to be] steeling a bread out of poverty would be considered "bad" by the society. In this case the end result is quite to the contrary of society's expectation of justice being served.

If the legislation is wrong then change it. It really is that simple. Don't blame the courts for applying it (although in the extreme cases you mention, there are probably consititutional issues).

Hungarian wrote: »

You are assuming that he was not on bail, and that's wrong. He was, in fact he still is on a bail of 500 000 HUF, which is about 2000 EUR. I would be curious to see what the conditions of that bail were. I am sure he didn't get this 500 000 HUF back, so he is breaking some court order -- by knowing something about the Hungarian system, I assume to show up for the sentence, as you don't necessarily need to show up for the trial. I'll ask about the details of that in Hungary, but why is this fact not discussed in detail in this decision (either pro or con) -- as something a lot more relevant to decide if he "fled" or not than those "facts" that were recited? Did the Hungarian authorities fail to provide pertinent details to MJELR or MJELR to the Supreme Court here?

If the conditions of that bail were that he was to turn up for trial or that he were only to leave Hungary on specific terms then it would be different. Then it could properly be argued that he fled. The reason the court put emphasis on the word fled is because it is contained in the EAW system. A similar word is used in other EU countries, such as Germany & Italy (IIRC).

Hungarian wrote: »

OK, I reiterate: I get the feeling that this proceedings was mistaken for representing the interest of an Irish citizen against another country's legal system from the wrong emphasis of facts presented in this decision. OK, if it was not the Supreme Court, then ask my question differently: why did the MJELR find it important to present those facts, instead of the details of those "arrangements" or the 500000 HUF bail that should have been a lot more relevant? To find the right interpretation of "fled", you really need to find the interpretation of those very court orders and "arrangements". Whose job is it to do that, and why is so little mentioned about them?

Why it's the job of the requesting state to furnish that information, of course. You really do seem to be trying to find someone to blame, and are not prepared to accept that it was the wording of the EAW Framework that led to this (although whether it was a mistake on the EU's part or deliberate we don't know).

Hungarian wrote: »

Can you elaborate this?

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681d...&Highlight=0,h

Hungarian

If what you say is true, that the "facts" in the judgement are those provided by the MJELR and simply recited by the court, then I still am not sure that this case was duly represented. It doesn't sound like the MJELR was really wholeheartedly arguing *for* the case of extraditing Mr. Tobin. At least listing irrelevant facts such as "he expressed deep and sincere regrets" and "there were severe language difficulties" doesn't substantiate to me that they were representing the case that they were supposed to. Please let me know if you can explain the reasons why they'd do that when their function in this case would be to represent the case for extraditing.

Now Hungary may have or may not have furnished the necessary documents -- but it is not them who had a chance to present that to the court. How it is presented is crucial, and those "facts" presented by the MJELR -- again, taking your assumption that it came from them and are simply recited by the Court -- leaves doubts in me that they did their best to present the best interpretation of these documents to substantiate the claim that Mr Tobin is in fact fleeing, or alternatively, based on the criteria on which he was released, he is to be considered a fugitive.

I find it hard to believe that the 500 000 HUF bail had no conditions attached to it. I'll research that and get back to you with that. Maybe yes, MJELR chose the wrong strategy and went after "fleeing" as opposed to "fugitive".

If I was to blame someone to get a peace of mind, it would be a lot simpler to blame the EAW law, as you do -- your motive is to shift the blame from the Irish legal system, and I can appreciate that. Note, that I am not trying to shift the blame from either the badly worded EAW law, nor the Hungarian authorities who may have been either too lax or not chosing the correct strategy to apply under the EAW umbrella, etc. but I don't think the Irish were 100% clean here.

[I avoided to mention so far the Mr. Tobin is.. how to say that, "well connected" gentleman. Part of the favorable treatment in Hungary is part of those connections, both through legal and diplomatic channels. I would not be surprised that some of these connections can not be discounted as the cause for some of those interesting irrelevant "facts" in this case, whichever way they made their way into that court decision...]

Hungarian

but I don't think the Irish were 100% clean here

To clarify this that may be subject to misunderstanding: of course I mean the actual people and proceedings on the Irish side involved in this legal matter, not the Irish people in general.

dr_manhattan

ROFLMAO.... this is hilarious.

On boards.ie I have seen calls for paedophiles and drug dealers to be shot on sight, executed, blah blah blah. Hysterical accusations and rants hurled at those who would appear to be abstracts or at best media demons.

And here we are with a bona fide child murderer cuddled to our bosom... is it because he's irish that we don't demand his castration, or cos he's rich?

Another milestone in Ireland's metamorphosis from postcolonial backwater to disgusting corporate watering hole.

(and btw, no: I'm not suggesting he be hung, castrated, etc: just serve his (rather lenient) jail sentence. I'm just wondering why there isn't a hundred loonies in here calling for his death, as there is whenever the words "child" and "harm" are used in the same headline...)

johnnyskeleton

Hungarian wrote: »

If I was to blame someone to get a peace of mind, it would be a lot simpler to blame the EAW law, as you do -- your motive is to shift the blame from the Irish legal system, and I can appreciate that.

My motive is to analyse things rationally and not to look for ulterior motives behind everythign.

Hungarian wrote: »

but I don't think the Irish were 100% clean here.

There is nothing rational in your argument. You are merely ranting at the Irish people. Take it to after hours and you'll get loads of people who agree with you, or who make obnoxious statements like "Sure the Supreme Court are entitled to protect him, he's Irish and much better than those Hungarian Scum" and you can talk about your theories, make spurious accusations, and get really worked up there all you want.

Hungarian

My motive is to analyse things rationally and not to look for ulterior motives behind everythign.

OK, let's continue rational analysis. I am continuing along your statements.

Usually, this will mean that lawyers for the MJELR stood up and said all of that and the court simply put it into the judgement verbatum. It is not the operative part of the judgement.
2. The court can only deal with arguments and facts put before it. If they didn't go into a detailed discussion of whether there was an implicit or explicit arrangement, it is probably because it wasn't argued by MJELR before the court.

In your opinion the MJELR had the function to argue for extraditing. If what you say is true, and these facts are from the MJELR and recited by the Supreme Court, then it doesn't seem to me that they (MJELR) were really trying hard at all. What's more, I'd this would make the whole "appeal" process ludicruous: the fact they presented pretty much establishes their position of being against the extradition despite their formal function of appealing. At that point it doesn't matter what the Hungarian authorities presented, if MJELR found that "he is so sorry", "he had language difficulties" and his statements were "almost not admitted" on the trial (which he chose not to be present at) and not the detailed conditions of the bail set by the Hungarian authorities as the best "facts" to present for the case. You need an explanation that if it was the MJELR that presented these facts, and the Supreme Court simply recited them, then what the hell did they have in mind...

The reason for this is that if you are going to do something which will have drastic consequences to someone, you must have a very precise legal right to do so.

Following that principle you say that Ireland would never ever extradite anyone unless there is an international law that expressis verbis forces them to do so. Note that the EAW, or any other international or bilateral agreement sets the conditions when the parties must extradite people, and it doesn't say anything in reverse, i.e. it does not say that if these conditions don't apply, you must not extradite. You still could, but you are not obliged to do so under that agreement.

What follows that if you get a Somalian mass murderer that legally entered Ireland, and let's assume there is no bilateral on international agreement between Ireland and Somalia, you would argue that you couldn't extradite, as "it would have drastic consequences to someone", so if you don't find the "precise legal right" -- such as a bilateral agreement -- you'd have no option but to let him live happily forever in Ireland.

Hungarian

Let me ask this differently, and help me rationally analyse the following.

Is it only me, who sees irrelevant, biased "facts" in the referenced Judgement such as
- He is so sorry about what had happened
- the poor guy had language difficulties
- at one point they were considering not allowing the statements he made at the trial translated by the daughter of his lawyer at the trial

when, on the same token such other "irrelevant", unbiased facts could be listed and were not such as:

- he was driving (as proven by meticulous trial in Hungary) 70-80 km/h in a 40 km/h zone, passing/cutting in in a constant stream of traffic on a two-lane suburban road, eventually leading to the tragedy
- he killed two kids on the sidewalk, in front of the very eyes of the mother and grandmother, who had to watch the futile rescue efforts

and I can go on with similar "facts" that have no relation to the case (fled or not fled, actually rather fugitive or not) to be tried, and are only "appeal to emotion", that could have been cited instead of the attempts to set some kind of sympathy for the guy?

So, my point is, that while it may be simply cited by the SC as you suggest, in which case it came from the MJELR, or maybe the SC found it appropriate to list those biased facts to mitigate possible public outrage against the decision, I think we can agree that you cannot blame the EU, nor can you blame the Hungarian authorities for those "biased facts" showing up in the Judgement. And please, stop accusing me that I am blaming the "Irish people" in general, when I am not. Yes, I do sometimes blame specific Irish people for specific acts, such as I am blaming Francis Ciaran Tobin for being the sole person responsible for the death of two children, and I am blaming a system where his money and connections can be used to save his ass.

And yes, I am pointing out very questionable procedures, and possible very questionable representation of the case, which of course does involve some Irish institutions and specific people who should have been representing the cause for the extradition and I am not convinced that they did so in their best capacity. Among other things, those biased selections of "facts" in the Judgement need some explanation.

daithicarr

I dont think its a case of Questionable proceedures, more of following the Law exactly with no room for leway.

yes the man commited a Crime, yes he should return to face his sentance, which the Hungarian courts imposed, the sentance seems a bit light in my opinoin , but then i wasnt at the trial.

But i dont think its a case of the Irish system trying to protect an Irish Citizen from justice. just that a mistake was made in the application which allowed him to escape justice. its fairly common all over the world guilty people escape justice and innocent people are unfairly prosecuted. no system is perfect.

johnnyskeleton

Hungarian wrote: »

In your opinion the MJELR had the function to argue for extraditing.

Yeah, it's just my unfounded opinion.

Hungarian wrote: »

If what you say is true, and these facts are from the MJELR and recited by the Supreme Court, then it doesn't seem to me that they (MJELR) were really trying hard at all.

Sometimes the facts are agreed between the parties where there is no real dispute but essentially the facts are what actually happened. In any case, I thought you were going to analyise it rationally now and stop looking for ulterior motives. Even if the Supreme Court and the MJELR had sympathy for the respondent, scouring the judgement for words which might indicate this is pointless.

Hungarian wrote: »

What's more, I'd this would make the whole "appeal" process ludicruous: the fact they presented pretty much establishes their position of being against the extradition despite their formal function of appealing.

What do you mean. The facts are what happened; they provide the background to the case. They are important in determining whether he fled or not. Should the MJELR have, in order to be against the extradition have made up some spurious facts to mislead the court into thinking that he had fled?

Hungarian wrote: »

At that point it doesn't matter what the Hungarian authorities presented, if MJELR found that "he is so sorry", "he had language difficulties" and his statements were "almost not admitted" on the trial (which he chose not to be present at) and not the detailed conditions of the bail set by the Hungarian authorities as the best "facts" to present for the case.

Where is "he is so sorry" in the text of the judgement? The other two quotes are taken completely out of context; the facts are just a recital of what happened. They detail his dealings with his Hungarian lawyer and with the trial process.

If you're going to argue along those lines, I'm going to say:
"It should be said that the judgment of the Hungarian court, insofar as it is available, is detailed and meticulous. The respondent has not suggested that the excluded evidence would have assisted his defence in any particular way."

which actually does appear in the text (paragraph 12) clearly illustrates that the Supreme Court felt great respect for the Hungarian Court and shows that they obviously thought that if the respondent raised any issue about the conduct of his trial then they would without doubt side with the Hungarian Court. Of course I don't say this, because it's just a recital of what happened.

Hungarian wrote: »

You need an explanation that if it was the MJELR that presented these facts, and the Supreme Court simply recited them, then what the hell did they have in mind...

What did they have in mind? Well, I'm sure they wanted to do their jobs. I suspect that the officer in MJELR wanted to perform his duty, I imagine his lawyers wanted to present their case as best they could, I suspect that the Supreme Court wanted to decide the question of law before it. There are no demons, ulterior motives etc. They just dealt with the case, same as any of the other EAW cases.

Hungarian wrote: »

Following that principle you say that Ireland would never ever extradite anyone unless there is an international law that expressis verbis forces them to do so. Note that the EAW, or any other international or bilateral agreement sets the conditions when the parties must extradite people, and it doesn't say anything in reverse, i.e. it does not say that if these conditions don't apply, you must not extradite. You still could, but you are not obliged to do so under that agreement.

First of all, the EAW does say quite a lot about when someone should not be extradited (see for example ss.23&24). But that's beside the point.

Forcefully transferring a person from one country to another, without lawful authority is called rendition. It's what the US does with those Iraquis and all the other people that they ship off to guantanamo without trial, due process etc. But in civilized societies like Ireland, Hungary and the rest of the EU, we have consitutions, EU rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. So no, you cannot extradite (technically it is surrender rather than extradition) a person save in due course of law. Nor can you convict someone of a criminal offence, save in due course of law. This means, among other things, that you cannot extradite/surrender someone unless you have a law which says you can. The absence of such a law means that the state cannot do it.

Hungarian wrote: »

What follows that if you get a Somalian mass murderer that legally entered Ireland, and let's assume there is no bilateral on international agreement between Ireland and Somalia, you would argue that you couldn't extradite, as "it would have drastic consequences to someone", so if you don't find the "precise legal right" -- such as a bilateral agreement -- you'd have no option but to let him live happily forever in Ireland.

1) If there was no extradition treaty between the two countries, then the person couldn't be extradited. I would have thought that is obvious. What you said is like saying "imagine drugs were legal, you would argue that someone shouldn't be put in jail for having drugs".

2) The state (I take it when you say you you mean Ireland and not me personally) would have several options other than letting him live happliy forever in Ireland. The state could seek to deport him.

johnnyskeleton

Hungarian wrote: »

Let me ask this differently, and help me rationally analyse the following.

Is it only me, who sees irrelevant, biased "facts" in the referenced Judgement such as
- He is so sorry about what had happened
- the poor guy had language difficulties
- at one point they were considering not allowing the statements he made at the trial translated by the daughter of his lawyer at the trial

when, on the same token such other "irrelevant", unbiased facts could be listed and were not such as:

- he was driving (as proven by meticulous trial in Hungary) 70-80 km/h in a 40 km/h zone, passing/cutting in in a constant stream of traffic on a two-lane suburban road, eventually leading to the tragedy
- he killed two kids on the sidewalk, in front of the very eyes of the mother and grandmother, who had to watch the futile rescue efforts

and I can go on with similar "facts" that have no relation to the case (fled or not fled, actually rather fugitive or not) to be tried, and are only "appeal to emotion", that could have been cited instead of the attempts to set some kind of sympathy for the guy?

So, my point is, that while it may be simply cited by the SC as you suggest, in which case it came from the MJELR, or maybe the SC found it appropriate to list those biased facts to mitigate possible public outrage against the decision, I think we can agree that you cannot blame the EU, nor can you blame the Hungarian authorities for those "biased facts" showing up in the Judgement. And please, stop accusing me that I am blaming the "Irish people" in general, when I am not. Yes, I do sometimes blame specific Irish people for specific acts, such as I am blaming Francis Ciaran Tobin for being the sole person responsible for the death of two children, and I am blaming a system where his money and connections can be used to save his ass.

And yes, I am pointing out very questionable procedures, and possible very questionable representation of the case, which of course does involve some Irish institutions and specific people who should have been representing the cause for the extradition and I am not convinced that they did so in their best capacity. Among other things, those biased selections of "facts" in the Judgement need some explanation.

You are:
1) not engaging with anything I have to say;
2) clutching at straws;
3) ignoring, specifically that the main fault is with the way in which the EAW system was drafted, and that the lax attitude of the Hungarian prosecuting authorities allowed this to happen;
4) unwilling to debate the matter rationally, relying instead on conspiracy theories and emotional appeals;
5) repeating the same thing over and over again - you think the judges were biased; and
6) seemingly hell bent on putting the blame on the Irish Supreme Court, the Minister for Justice, or any other foreign devil you can find.

Hungarian

I understand what you say. Let me reiterate of what I think you are saying, and tell me if I didn't get your points. I think I fully understand it, I just don't agree with it in some important aspects.

So, your position is that the MJELR was doing their job, and so did the Supreme Court. The MJELR got a request from the Hungarian authorities, they presented the case for surrendering Mr. Tobin, and the courts, after examining the facts and the wording of the law had no option but to refuse it. The MJELR appealed, they presented the case as best they could (based on wht they got from the Hungarian authorities) and the SC had no option but to dismiss it again.

This is how I understand your position. Tell me if I'm missing your point.

However, it seems to also imply, that that was the only outcome of this issue regardless of how the MJELR and the SC approached it, as the "law" is a 100% exact, perfect machine, and if you drop a case in, you get the same undisputed result as the outcome, which may or may not correlate of what we feel is "just", but certainly exact and repeatable.

This basic idea is sort of implied, at least in how you present this to me. I don't think this is the case, and that may be the disconnect between us, and that's why we talk past each-other. If it was the case, one would not need trials, only smart judges until smart computers could just do the whole thing. You feed the case in, and the computer reaches an undisputed conclusion based on exact rules. (yes, the rules may not be exact in all cases, that's when common sense is needed, but you yourself argued that it was not the case here).

What you forget is that there is 1000 ways to "feed" in the case to the system, and not only need to interpret the law, but you also need to interpret the case in its relation to the text of the law. Trials were invented so that both parties -- where each party is strongly interested (emotionally, financially, professionally, etc.) in their interpretation or perspective on the same facts and law, as the Americans say, "they have a dog in the fight" -- can present their way of seeing the case, the circumstances, and the interpretation of the law in light of the actual case, and find the best strategy to win the case. There is nothing wrong with the fact that people involved have interests and emotions, they are human. I don't even find it wrong if someone is emotionally more attached to an Irish citizen than a Hungarian one. The system is (normally) designed however to take that into account and let both interests have a chance to present their case. "Checks and balances".

What I feel is that this "checks and balances" were missing here. Maybe I am more sensitive to this as Hungary in the 50s was hard communist dictatorship. You had trials, and you had pro forma lawyers and defence. However, there role was strictly formal, they did not have a "dog in the fight". Actually they had a very strong interest to remain formal, as otherwise they would be sent to the Gulag. So, they ended up presenting things that "well, while we understand that the defendant is really a bad guy and wanted to hurt his homeland, we find that it is not really proven that he was in connection with capitalists" -- when they new very well that they had mails to prove that he had Austrian friends. They just played a role to show the world that there is representation for the defence.

I am not saying -- you like to misinterpret my reasoning to the extreme -- or implying that the Irish courts are comparable to those times in Hungary, this is just an example -- a very extreme one -- where everything is formally correct, but "checks and balances" are missing. A clear indicator of that would be when someone, whose role should be to be arguing for the guy being innocent is to actually present facts that really set the tone otherwise -- or vica versa.

So, to the point: In this case, based on what you say, it doesn't look like to me that the party whose function was to fight for the extradition really had a strong interest, emotional, professional, or financial to win that case. If those statements that the SC recited as the "facts" were indeed presented by the MJELR, as you state, whose "function" was to fight FOR the extradition, then I have very strong doubts that they in fact had a strong interest. It seems that they were emotionally or otherwise attached to the dismissal rather than the extradition, and they only played a pro-forma role to appeal.

You seem to downplay the importance of these "spins" on how the "facts" are recited. Lawyers often engage in this tactic: "your main witness was charged with manslaughter, although acquitted later". Of course, it should be ignored completely, but lawyers keep doing that, because it works. As I said, people always human. It is OK, as long as the checks and balances are present. One side puts one spin on the facts, the other side puts the other spin on the same facts.

I don't see the balance here.

(You asked where is the "he is so sorry": p. 6: He accepts that this was a terrible tragedy and he has expressed deep and sincere sympathy to the bereaved family. Irrelevant BS. It is OK to say such things for the defence -- remember, checks and balances, but on the other side I'd expext someone saying things like "he negligently drove at speeds exceeding the speed limit by 100% killing two innocent childred on the sidewalk in front of the very eyes of the mother and grandmother. -- yes, it is irrelevant BS too (not for the family, but for the trial), but it is OK to say that for the district attorney or whoever's job is to get the guy).

So, when you get dropped into a trial, and hear someone say "your key witness against Mr. X was charged with manslaughter in 1995 although acquitted later" -- whose side would you think that guy making the statement is on? On the defence side, woudn't you think? You'd expect than that they'd do everything in their best capacity to present the case for Mr. X's defence, wouldn't you? On the other side, if you hear that "Mr. X was also known for being very anti-social by his neighbors", you'd now whose side they are on, and whose interest are they representing...

But for God's sake, whose side was the MJELR on, if they chose this presentation for the "facts"? Wouldn't you think that if they were representing the case for the extradition wholheartedly, they'd rather put a very different spin, and present the facts about his failing to return despite the bail and a court order, his terribly negligent driving as estabilished by the court, etc.?

I don't know, and really don't even care, why the MJELR was carefully presenting the facts in the way to put Mr. Tobin to the best possible light, whether it is patriotic emotions, of pressure from some of Mr. Tobin's influential friends, or his money, or something else -- but here we are with a trial where there seems to have been no sides that was sincerely representing the case for the extradition. And I do think that the attitude of the one representing the case does influence the outcome, yes. For example, if the MJELR really had a dog in the fight, they'd argue that Mr. Tobin is in fact a "fugitive" -- the SC even acknowledged that Mr. Tobin "failed to return to Hungary". (paragraph 21). Even though they may have received a plea from the Hungarian authorities with the words "flee", they could have requested to scrutinize the word "flee" vs. "fugitive" in Hungarian, which may have been a lot more appropriate to estabilish the legal basis of the request of the Hungarian authorities as per their intentions regardless of a possibly less then perfect translation, than looking up the meaning of "flee" in all those other languages. ("szökött" as a past tense could mean "fled", but also as a past participle is the word for fugitive, or at large in general). These are just a few things I can imagine naively that could be presented if someone really had a dog in the fight, and of course a dog on the extradition side, I might add...

Hungarian

You are making statements again that are simply not true. I stated earlier that I am aware of the mistakes and errors the Hungarians did, and I am raising my voices about that where appropriate. I am also aware of the loopholes and bad wording in the EU law, and I am raising my voices about that where appropriate. I also happen to believe that the system didn't work at it best in Ireland either, and you don't. As this is an Irish forum, I find it appropriate to discuss that aspect of the story here, not the EU or Hungarian aspects.

Don't worry, I am putting the blame on the Hungarian authorities also. If that makes you happy, we will not stop, until we get a clear explanation if there is any connection between the fact that the very lawyer who represented Mr. Tobin became the Minister of Justice in 2002 and the fact that there were formal errors the authorities made when (not correctly) notifying Mr. Tobin about the verdict. Part of those errors increased the chances of eventually finding some loopholes. Conspiration theory? Blaming corruption? A conflict of interets? I don't care how you call it, I want explanations, answers and investigations there too.

But I am signing the petitions and raising my voice about that where it makes sense, and I am not using my belief that the Irish authorities whose function it would have been to fight for the extradition were not doing their best either as an excuse for the Hungarian authorities, and vice versa, I am not using the mistakes the Hungarian authorities made or the bad wording of the EAW framework as an excuse for the Irish authorities involved.

On the other hand it is you who seem to be content that everyone else (EU and Hungary -- as you said, any foreign devil) is at fault, and that's enough of an excuse to say everything was a 100% perfect in Ireland. It seems amazing to me that you find no indication whatsoever in the way the spin is put on those "facts" that something about the representation of this case may not be 100% right here.

johnnyskeleton

Hungarian wrote: »

I understand what you say. Let me reiterate of what I think you are saying, and tell me if I didn't get your points. I think I fully understand it, I just don't agree with it in some important aspects.

So, your position is that the MJELR was doing their job, and so did the Supreme Court. The MJELR got a request from the Hungarian authorities, they presented the case for surrendering Mr. Tobin, and the courts, after examining the facts and the wording of the law had no option but to refuse it. The MJELR appealed, they presented the case as best they could (based on wht they got from the Hungarian authorities) and the SC had no option but to dismiss it again.

That's it, nothing sinister, they looked at the facts surrounding his departure, applied the law, determined that he did not "flee" and found that to extradite him where he did not flee would be contrary to law.

All the other stuff you said

If they really had "a dog in the fight" as you say, they could have brought pictures of the dead children into court. Or even better the lawyers for the minister for justice could have threatened to run over the Chief Justice's children to prove his point. You can't just make up more facts to bolster your case, nor should you trawl through everthing the respondent has done in order to pick out little details and cast a doubtful spin on them just to have a dog in the fight, as you say.

Courts need not be devoid of human sentiment, indeed they must express opinions on justice, fact and social considerations day in day out. But they should not be governed by their emotions to such an extent as to ignore the law. They cannot simply say "although the law says this, quite clearly, I choose to do otherwise".

Your view is faulty because you are trying to find an ulterior motive and picking up any spurious off-hand comment to justify this. I don't think any neutral observer would say that the Supreme Court was biased, but if they did they would do so based on something a whole lot more concrete than what you are putting forward.

In any case, just go to After Hours for ****s sake. You can rant all you want there, and you will have people who agree with you, and other people you disagree with you fot the hell of it and you can express your views to them all you like.

Sorry for cussing mods.

Hungarian

While you try to avoid answering any of the questions I asked, what you answered implies that you believe that yes, there is only a single way to interpret and present facts, and the facts as presented were the only way they could be presented "devoid of human sentiment". You think it is neutral, and only includes relevant facts toward determining if the extradition is well founded, and in no way one-sided to only include facts and factoids to raise sympathy for Mr. Tobin.

You can't just make up more facts

You are again misquoting what I said -- not the first time. I never said anything about making up facts. I said however that there are 1000 ways to present them. There is nothing factually wrong with eitiher presentation I provided; the actual presentation as recited in the SC Judgement, and the alternative one I suggested as another factually correct one. Each variation shows a different attachment to the case.

The one recited in the SC Judgement shows a presentation that is one-sided in that it attempts to raise sympathy to Mr. Tobin. You will never ever admit it, but it clearly is. OK, I rephrase it: I see it that way very strongly, so you can argue that it is my distorted view based on my beliefs that justice was not served here, and not your view based on your belief that this is everyone else's fault but the perfect Irish institutions. You say it comes from the MJELR, not the SC, OK, I believe that. But that's still a problem, just a different one. But as you don't agree in the basic statement that the facts clearly show that whoever presented them had an attitude of one that you would expect on the defence team of Mr. Tobin, we aren't going to go into a rational discussion about the consequences of that.

seahorse

I hadn't even heard about this case until I read this thread. If it were two Irish children killed by a Hungarian no doubt the whole country would be talking about it. Also though, I think if the shoe were on the other foot Irish people would direct a huge proportion of their anger at the Irish system which allowed the person to leave.

Hungarian; what is the mood in Hungary about this? No doubt people are very angry, but I'm curious to know where their anger is directed? Do they hold their own laws responsible for letting Ciaran Tobin to leave?

Hungarian

seahorse:

Obviously, everybody is outraged. They are very critical of the Hungarian authorities as well -- although people in Hungary always tend to be very critical of the ability of their own institutions, so there is not much surprise here. (caveat: of course there is no single opinion of the "public", so what I say is the tendency as I see it).

They blame the Hungarian authorities, (rightfully), about letting Mr. Tobin leave, and then probably making procedural mistakes during the process. But they also believe that without the tacit assistance, or at least less than motivated efforts of those involved on the Irish side, these mistakes would not have been enough for his lawyers to get him out of the woods.

The press tended to portray the Irish Ministry of Justice as have been fighting for our cause because they did believe that this is the right thing to do, and appealed as they were not satisfied with the dismissal -- but after johhnyskeleton pointed out some of the procedural background, I think the picture may be somewhat different to me, showing that they just followed their burocratic duty, which, the least to say, was not enough against the highly motivated party of Mr. Tobin and his team of lawyers.

Coincidentally, Irish Justice Minister Brian Lenihan is in Hungary today, unrelated to this incident (at least per the official reasons for his visit), meeting with Hungarian Justice Minister Tibor Draskovics. A petition will be handed to both of them requesting answers.

http://www.meathchronicle.ie/story.asp?stID=2476

Hungarian

I hadn't even heard about this case until I read this thread.

I hope this will change. The Irish media did pick it up to some extent, but still not many people in Ireland is aware of this story.

johnnyskeleton

Hungarian wrote: »

While you try to avoid answering any of the questions I asked,

Your questions are an essay length rant on what you feel about dogs in fights and sinister interpretations of the facts. Without being in the court or in the Department of Justice, I don't think either of us could honestly say how the MJELR felt about the case. However, the fact that he went to the trouble of appealing the case shows that he clearly did want the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the High Court on the interpretation of flee.

Hungarian wrote: »

what you answered implies that you believe that yes, there is only a single way to interpret and present facts, and the facts as presented were the only way they could be presented "devoid of human sentiment".

No, of course not, see above for what I believe, but this is a good example of you twisting my words. I said:

"Courts need not be devoid of human sentiment, indeed they must express opinions on justice"

and you turn this into:

"you believe that...the facts as presented were the only way they could be presented "devoid of human sentiment""

Hungarian wrote: »

You think it is neutral, and only includes relevant facts toward determining if the extradition is well founded, and in no way one-sided to only include facts and factoids to raise sympathy for Mr. Tobin.

If what you say is true, and the real reason for their decision was that they had sympathy for the respondent, why would they bother reciting one sided facts in his favour? The Court didn't point to any of those facts as reasons for not extraditing him; they did not use those facts to justify their decision. Their decision was based on the sole question of whether or not he fled.

Now, if what you say is just nonsense, do you not see that they needed to give a brief recital of the facts, and if some of the facts cast the respondent in a good light (or a bad light, they noted he admitted responsibility and called the death of the two children as a quite appaling tragedy) that is neither here nor there because it doesn't change whether he fled or not.

Moreover, they could have gone on at length about the circumstances of the accident, said nothing that would put him in a good light, and discussed all the other things that you say are against him in the facts, but when it came down to the question of whether he fled or not they would still have arrived at the same conclusion (unless they added something into the facts which suggeseted that he did flee).

Hungarian wrote: »

You are again misquoting what I said -- not the first time. I never said anything about making up facts. I said however that there are 1000 ways to present them. There is nothing factually wrong with eitiher presentation I provided; the actual presentation as recited in the SC Judgement, and the alternative one I suggested as another factually correct one. Each variation shows a different attachment to the case.

I never said you said anything about making up facts, but it seems to me that the only way in which a stronger case could have been presented is if the MJELR made up facts to show that the Respondent actually fled (which of course the Minister did not). For all your talk of how the facts were presented, you have not said how different facts would have changed the outcome. You are simply saying that the way the facts are recited suggests to you that the court was biased in favour of the Respondent.

Hungarian wrote: »

The one recited in the SC Judgement shows a presentation that is one-sided in that it attempts to raise sympathy to Mr. Tobin. You will never ever admit it, but it clearly is. OK, I rephrase it: I see it that way very strongly, so you can argue that it is my distorted view based on my beliefs that justice was not served here, and not your view based on your belief that this is everyone else's fault but the perfect Irish institutions. You say it comes from the MJELR, not the SC, OK, I believe that. But that's still a problem, just a different one. But as you don't agree in the basic statement that the facts clearly show that whoever presented them had an attitude of one that you would expect on the defence team of Mr. Tobin, we aren't going to go into a rational discussion about the consequences of that.

1) Who are they trying to raise sympathy with? They are the Supreme Court? They are not appealable within Ireland, and if they are appealed in the EU it is more likely to take the form of legislative change of the EAW system rather than a criticism of them being biased.

2) My view is not that the Irish institutions are perfect, but that they were dealing with a flawed piece of legislation, and in any event their role was limited to determining the meaning of fled, and I don't think they could realistically have come to another outcome.

3) I'm not saying the facts come from the MJELR, I am saying they come from the parties making the argument in court. Most likely, the facts would have been presented by the MJELR, because they are appealing. I'm not going to go into a detailed discussion of the reality of the situation, but these facts could well have come from the "defence team". So what? It has no bearing on the outcome.

Hungarian

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You are a troll of the worst variety. Where did I ever say anything to suggest that?

You said that those facts are simply recited by the SC, and were not in any way presented or selectively picked by the SC as I thought it may be the case. I accepted your statement, it does make sense that it is a simple recital of what the MJELR said. That's all I attributed to you.

The conclusion is mine, not yours of course, that to me that indicates a less than motivated appeal from the MJELR. The lightest I can put it that the presentation of "facts" as recited in the judgement show a strong influence of Tobin's defence team, and none from a party I'd expect to be fighting keenly for the extradition.

Hungarian

but these facts could well have come from the "defence team". So what? It has no bearing on the outcome.

OK, I call that progress. You stopped denying the undeniable: I think that the presentation of the facts as recited in the judgement seem to be heavily influenced by the Tobin defence side -- now you are saying it is at least possible.

Let's analyze whether that is indicative of anything.

My opinion is that it shows that there was a lot more energy, motivation, effort spent from the lawyers defending Mr. Tobin than the party who was fighting for the extradition, you know, dogs and fights. I believe that it was a successful effort, as shown by the "facts" section. I also believe it does effect the outcome (the essay length post, that you labeled as a "rant" was trying to explain the trivality that this is how legal processes work, and the guarantee for fairness is the balance).

You seem to disagree: you say that now matter how successful the Tobin team was to influence the presentation of facts, there is no way it affected the outcome in any way.

Do I see our positions and opinions correctly?

Hungarian

Coincidentally, Irish Justice Minister Brian Lenihan is in Hungary today, unrelated to this incident (at least per the official reasons for his visit), meeting with Hungarian Justice Minister Tibor Draskovics. A petition will be handed to both of them requesting answers.

Update:

seahorse

Hungarian wrote: »

Coincidentally, Irish Justice Minister Brian Lenihan is in Hungary today, unrelated to this incident (at least per the official reasons for his visit), meeting with Hungarian Justice Minister Tibor Draskovics. A petition will be handed to both of them requesting answers.

I'm curious to know were Irish signatures collected for that petition? If not, they should have been. I know, as a parent myself, I'd have signed it.

Hungarian

This was on a very short notice, as the visit of the Minister was learned only 2 days ago. So the petition was signed only by a handful of people, I believe the family and close friends from the village.

Organizing a petition, probably directed at the EU, Ireland and Hungary, asking for an explanation and not mutual fingerpointing, with petitioners signing from both countries (actually any country) may be a very good idea. This is not a Hungarian or Irish issue, this is really about what kind of EU we, EU citizens want.

Hungarian

Update:

Lenihan was handed the petition too.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lenihan-to-meet-family-in-road-crash-protest-1331750.html

Hungarian

johnnyskeleton:

I have some info on what the real issue may to have been. What I am saying here is not my smarts, this is coming from someone else, I am reciting it with my words. Let me know what you think. It does make sense to me.

When Hungary was first officially questioning Ireland after the first ruling, Ireland was asking back if a retrial in the presence of Mr. Tobin would be possible. In fact they said something to the effect that if a retrial was possible the decision on the extradition may be different. Hungary stood firm saying that under Hungarian Law this is not possible.

The history is this: Ireland doesn't accept a trial "in absentia" as a fair trial, in any shape or form, even if the man was duly notified and represented by his lawyers ("le défaut"). This comes from the Common Law's strong and unquestionable interpretation of the "auditatur et altera pars". This is why you see all those references in the Judgement about his statements that were questioned to be entered. This is to suggest "see, a trial in absentia is not fair".

Now up till recently that was a valid reason to deny extradition. Countries that did not allow trials in absentia (Common Law, plus Netherlands, Luxembourg) were able to leave that as an option to deny extradition in the European Convention of Extradition (1957), and while there were some resulutions to try to exclude that in 1975, there was strong resistence.

However now Article 5 of the EAW now clearly says that you can NOT deny the extradition on the basis of not accepting an in absentia trial, when the defendant was duly notified and had due representation -- so the judges could not quote that as the real reason. However, conveniently, the lawyers of Mr. Tobin have come up with this "fleeing" vs. "failing to return" interpretation, this gave them a defendable cause to deny the extradition.

By "defendable" I mean that it is an argument that could go either way with a judge. It is doubtful that if it was someone spending his time in an Irish prison, getting a special leave for a medical or family reason, and then failing to return, and then finding that some of the legal consequences are worded "fleeing", this argument would have a high chance to be accepted by a judge, although worth a try. (Of course the chance is a lot higher now as they can point to the Tobin case as a precedence).

Hungarian

(Irish Times, 11 July 2007)

...

Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini urged Irish judges to place their trust in the European arrest warrant, which was agreed by EU ministers for justice in 2002 and introduced in the Republic in 2004.

...

An EU official said one problem in the Republic is related to an "endorsement" process, whereby the Irish authorities scrutinise each arrest warrant and often request additional information or a new warrant before presenting the case to the High Court. The commission says this process is unnecessary.

A Government spokeswoman said proposed amendments to the legislation in the Republic would mean in the future "that a technical defect in requests for surrender shall not be a ground under which the Courts will refuse to surrender a person".

But aside from the technical problems that can delay execution of warrants, there are also concerns that judges in some states do not trust their EU counterparts. Some states are reluctant to extradite their own citizens and have introduced checks and conditions that are not compatible with European legislation, according to the report.

...

ogre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But we would have made bail conditions that 1) the person turn up for trial, 2) the person does not leave the jurisdiction withtout the leave of the court, and will return when requested 3) surrender their passport if necessary or, if they believed that the person was likely to flee and never come back, they would remand them in custody.

What difference would it make? The defendant didn't return when requested. Does it matter w.r.t the meaning of "fleeing" if the person doesn't return for the sentence (as in this case) or if he doesn't return for the trial (as in your case)?

I actually think this literal interpretaion of fleeing is a bunch of BS. It is like saying that formally I didn't "hang up" the phone as you don't hang up phones since the old 30's style wall mounted phones. Cash no longer means actual coins and notes, it means a transaction that is against your (debit) account and not your credit line. The meaning of fleeing also includes jumping bail. The meaning of words extends and changes with time.

johnnyskeleton

ogre wrote:

What difference would it make? The defendant didn't return when requested. Does it matter w.r.t the meaning of "fleeing" if the person doesn't return for the sentence (as in this case) or if he doesn't return for the trial (as in your case)?

Yes because if they didn't return for trial they could be surrendered under s.10b which does not require that the person feld, as opposed to s.10d when they were sentenced and fled.

Furthermore, if he was subject to bail conditions that required him to remain in Hungary and/or turn up for trial, his failure to do so could be considered fleeing.

ogre wrote:

I actually think this literal interpretaion of fleeing is a bunch of BS. It is like saying that formally I didn't "hang up" the phone as you don't hang up phones since the old 30's style wall mounted phones. Cash no longer means actual coins and notes, it means a transaction that is against your (debit) account and not your credit line. The meaning of fleeing also includes jumping bail. The meaning of words extends and changes with time.

No it's not. People use "hang up" as meaning end a conversation. I wouldn't ever say I paid in cash if I used my laser card, but if some people do then it's a perfectly acceptable usage.

But if I went on holidays to the UK for a weekend to see my family, could anyone legitimately say that I fled to the UK?

So how has the meaning of flee changed over time?

ogre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes because if they didn't return for trial they could be surrendered under s.10b which does not require that the person feld, as opposed to s.10d when they were sentenced and fled.

You are correct. I should have read the case first.

But reading the thread I see that you are all mistaken about pointing to the EU framework. These referenced sections are in the Irish EAW Act 2003 which is the local implementation of the EAW Framework Decision. The Framework Decision lists all mandatory and optional grounds for refusal of executing the warrant in Article 4, and "jumping bail without literally fleeing" is not among those.

If the only possible interpretation of fleeing would be such that it doesn't include jumping bail, then the Supreme Court would be correct in saying that the local implementation is just a best effort, and even if it is noncompliant, the Member State cannot be forced to act contra legem.

But as such interpretation of fleeing is at least questionable, they should have done as they correctly state:

courts must interpret those laws in a way which will best achieve that objective, i.e., in the light of the Framework Decision

Saying that fleeing can be interpreted such as it does not include jumping bail is already big time BS in my opinion, but what they say is that it cannot even be interpreted any other way (otherwise they should have taken the intepretation to achieve compliance with the Framework Decision). I find it more than unacceptable.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No it's not. People use "hang up" as meaning end a conversation. I wouldn't ever say I paid in cash if I used my laser card, but if some people do then it's a perfectly acceptable usage.

But if I went on holidays to the UK for a weekend to see my family, could anyone legitimately say that I fled to the UK?

So how has the meaning of flee changed over time?

If you go onto a holiday, of course it is not fleeing, unless, there is a court order that you should return and appear before the court, and you don't. So how did it change over time? first it only meant fleeing from fire, a ferocious animal, from enemies, war, then with the introduction of the law, it extended to fleeing justice, and with the introduction of the institution of bails and court orders it extended into failing to appear before court in any way.

But here is a lot stronger argument, if you stick to literal meanings. What about meaning #4 in the Oxford Dictionary referenced in p31 of the Judgement? It says fleeing also means "disappear". The guy should have appeared before the Hungarian authorities to start serving his sentence. A he did not, from their perspective the guy disappeared. What is more literal for disappearing than not appearing?

This whole case stinks.

johnnyskeleton

ogre wrote: »

But reading the thread I see that you are all mistaken about pointing to the EU framework. These referenced sections are in the Irish EAW Act 2003 which is the local implementation of the EAW Framework Decision. The Framework Decision lists all mandatory and optional grounds for refusal of executing the warrant in Article 4, and "jumping bail without literally fleeing" is not among those.

You have it backwards, the question of whether someone fled or not is not a ground for refusing to surrender someone, but rather the EAW is primarily intended to abolish formal extradition hearings for persons who are fleeing from justice after having been sentenced. Hence it is more akin to rendition than extradition.

In any event, it is in the Framework decision, and it is in most other EU countries' domestic legislation:
(1)According to the Conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point 35 thereof, the formal extradition procedure should be abolished among the Member States in respect of persons who are fleeing from justice after having been finally sentenced and extradition procedures should be speeded up in respect of persons suspected of having committed an offence.

ogre wrote: »

If the only possible interpretation of fleeing would be such that it doesn't include jumping bail, then the Supreme Court would be correct in saying that the local implementation is just a best effort, and even if it is noncompliant, the Member State cannot be forced to act contra legem.

But as such interpretation of fleeing is at least questionable, they should have done as they correctly state:
Saying that fleeing can be interpreted such as it does not include jumping bail is already big time BS in my opinion, but what they say is that it cannot even be interpreted any other way (otherwise they should have taken the intepretation to achieve compliance with the Framework Decision). I find it more than unacceptable.

He didn't jump bail, that's what the whole case is about. If he did jump bail this case wouldn't have arisen. They are not saying that fleeing can be interpreted as including jumping bail, they are saying that what he did is not fleeing. He was permitted to leave hence not jumping bail as you so colourfully describe it.

ogre wrote: »

If you go onto a holiday, of course it is not fleeing, unless, there is a court order that you should return and appear before the court, and you don't.

Exactly. That's the whole point.

ogre wrote: »

So how did it change over time? first it only meant fleeing from fire, a ferocious animal, from enemies, war, then with the introduction of the law, it extended to fleeing justice, and with the introduction of the institution of bails and court orders it extended into failing to appear before court in any way.

Very interesting, but irrelevant. How does the meaning of flee change to include leaving a country with the consent of the authorities? You seem to understand the basic idea that in Ireland you are required to turn up for court, but you might not appreciate that no such requirement was imposed by the Hungarian authorities in this case.

ogre wrote:

But here is a lot stronger argument, if you stick to literal meanings. What about meaning #4 in the Oxford Dictionary referenced in p31 of the Judgement? It says fleeing also means "disappear". The guy should have appeared before the Hungarian authorities to start serving his sentence. A he did not, from their perspective the guy disappeared. What is more literal for disappearing than not appearing?

Because it is a quasi-penal statute and should be interpreted strictly. This means that you must favour the more common sense meaning of a word rather than an abstract or fanciful meaning found at #4 in the oxford english dictionary. That aside, I think you're stretching the meaning of disappear to a point of absurdity. You are saying that if I don't appear in work then I dissappear, which is a misuse of the words.

ogre wrote:

This whole case stinks.

Well I think I've dealt with all your concerns adequately above, yet why do I feel that no matter how I try to explain it, you will still find some way of criticizing it. Why does it stink? If you want to point out what you consider to be flaws in the logic used that is one thing, but is there anything that makes it stink other than the "Child killer gets away" type of evening herald response?

ogre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you go onto a holiday, of course it is not fleeing, unless, there is a court order that you should return and appear before the court, and you don't.

Exactly. That's the whole point.

Yes, exactly, that's the point. If you agree that if you leave on a holiday, and there is a court order that you return when requested, and you don't comply with that, that could be considered as fleeing, then I don't see what we are arguing about.

In this case the defendant left with the consent of the authorities, but with the restriction that he returns upon request. He did not return. That I call jumping bail, vanishing, disappearing, which in my understanding of the word, and so is in the Oxford Dictionary's understaning, is a form of fleeing.

Actually as I read it is even more complicated than that. He was allowed to leave for a family visit, and requested to return by a certain date. The hungarians returned his passport and allowed him to leave explicitly for the purpose of that family visit in September 2000, and with the condition to return by October 2000 as indicated by the defendant. He left, and did return as pormised. So far no fleeing, OK. But then, as the hungarians didn't order him to return his passport, he packed up and left in December, this time without the explicit consent of the authorities and never returned. He argued that it was with the implicit consent of the authorities it was based on the fact that the surrender of his passport upon his first return wasn't explicitly ordered.

In my opinion, just because you have your passport with you, and you leave a country, it doesn't imply that you are not fleeing. If you rob a bank, and immediately leave to Brasil with a passport in your pocket, that's still fleeing by all possible interpretation of that word, even if the passport is valid, what's more, there is no effective court order that says you can't leave or should return. That would not formally be "fleeing" if this interpretation could be accepted. So, this is still major league BS.

Sounds like you know this guy or work for the law firm that defended the guy.

Hungarian

As the civils are collecting information, there is a few details to consider on the legal (and diplomatic) ends:

1) Originally his passport was taken, and he was ordered to stay in Hungary until the end of the trial.

2) when the bail was set in 2000, EAW was nowhere. The expectations were based on some older bilateral agreement.

3) Irish Ambassador Jim Flavin personally lobbied for lifting the travel restrictions for Tobin and letting him get his passport back on a bail. He wrote things in his e-mail dated 18 Sept 2000 like "I personally know Mr. Tobin for over a year and I think greatly of him" -- retranslated from Hungarian, from the files of the Hungarian Authorities [http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20080413-nagykovet-kampanyolt-az-ir-gazolo-hazaengedeseert.html]

4) The diplomatic pressure was very effective: the *next day* the district attorney proposed setting a bail and it was accepted on the same day with the condition that he returns in October -- and Tobin left that day on the 19th September. He did indeed return in October as promised and as requested.

5) As this was done hastily and with the expectation that the diplomatic assurances will mean anything in enforcing the bail later (here is the first fault of the Hungarian Authorities), they did not explicitly state that he should surrender his passport on return. However, it should not matter: in their position is that they clearly only waived the original court order for his specific application for his single visit, so otherwise the original court order that ordered him to remain in Hungary remained in effect. The fact that the trial was started in his absence and they did not opt to take steps at that time to enforce that order is not "implied conduct" to mean that they approved his absence, and certainly not that they approved his permanent departure. Tobin however successfully argued using these arguments in Ireland that his departure was legal. (This is a concern on its own as the lawyers here explained -- the EAW allows no room for challenging the claims in the Hungarian arrest warrant, including the sentence, the facts estabilished by the trial, or the facts about his departure. If the Hungarians claim he drove fast, he killed the children, he was negligent, and he fled despite the court order, it has to be accepted based on the "highest level of confidence" principle of the EAW)

johnnyskeleton

ogre wrote: »

Yes, exactly, that's the point. If you agree that if you leave on a holiday, and there is a court order that you return when requested, and you don't comply with that, that could be considered as fleeing, then I don't see what we are arguing about.

Because the point is that if it was a condition of his bail that he turn up at the trial, or not leave hungary, or was subject to some other such order, he might have been fleeing, but he wasn't so he didn't flee.

ogre wrote: »

In this case the defendant left with the consent of the authorities, but with the restriction that he returns upon request. He did not return.

I must have missed that part of the case!

ogre wrote: »

So far no fleeing, OK. But then, as the hungarians didn't order him to return his passport, he packed up and left in December, this time without the explicit consent of the authorities and never returned. He argued that it was with the implicit consent of the authorities it was based on the fact that the surrender of his passport upon his first return wasn't explicitly ordered.

Where is this now? He was not required to surrender his passport a second time, so how you figure that he was required to do so?

ogre wrote: »

In my opinion, just because you have your passport with you, and you leave a country, it doesn't imply that you are not fleeing. If you rob a bank, and immediately leave to Brasil with a passport in your pocket, that's still fleeing by all possible interpretation of that word, even if the passport is valid, what's more, there is no effective court order that says you can't leave or should return. That would not formally be "fleeing" if this interpretation could be accepted.

But it would be different, would it not, if you were interviewed by the gardai on suspicion of robbery, and they said "yeah, sure, go off to brazil, we don't care"?

ogre wrote: »

So, this is still major league BS.

Sounds like you know this guy or work for the law firm that defended the guy.

That's right, if you can't attack the post attack the poster. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean they have an ulterior motive. And call it "major league BS" all you like, the fundamental flaw with your argument is that you are trying to find something - anything - to justify the surrender of this person. You do not seem prepared to debate it rationally.

Hungarian

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I must have missed that part of the case!

OK, let me fill you in.

His passport was taken in April, and he was ordered not to leave Hungary. He and the Irish embassy was duly notified.

Then he applied for a single visit, specific dates from Septemeber to October 2000. The authorities lifted the travel restricting order for that visit based on his application and returned his passport. They didn't dismiss the previous order, and returned his passport for the purpose of the permitted single visit.

They did fail to explicitly say he must return his passport upon his return, but that's irrelevant (a year or two later the whole passport would have been meaningless as Hungary joined the Schengen zone so no travel documents needed). What matters is that the previous court order was not voided, only amended with this permission that was only effective for the single visit. This is the Hungarian interpretation. He should not have left Hungary again after October.

And that only matters with the stupid interpretation of fleeing. Fleeing means any means to avoid something unpleasant. See how your fellow Irish posters understand "fleeing jurisdiction".

Our disagreement is so deep that it is worthless to continue. Let's see what Eurojust and Hague will say.

ogre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's right, if you can't attack the post attack the poster.

As far as I am concerned knowing the guy or working for his defense is not an evil thing so why would suggesting that be considered as an attack?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But it would be different, would it not, if you were interviewed by the gardai on suspicion of robbery, and they said "yeah, sure, go off to brazil, we don't care"?

I asked if my example is fleeing or not. Can you provide a yes/no answer for that?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You are saying that if I don't appear in work then I dissappear, which is a misuse of the words.

I used this equivocation to show where taking things too literally takes you. You rightfully find this strict literal interpretation of appear/disappear ridiculous, but you insist that it is OK with the word flee. Most dictionaries only list "flee=to run away" (such as Compact Oxford). By that strictest literal sense anyone who is driving or riding or just walking is not fleeing. On the other hand, in the widest sense flee means any method of avoiding something unpleasant, including, but not limited to running, moving, hiding, vanishing, etc. How could you say that meanings #1-#3 represent the "most common sense meaning" and #4 is fanciful and should not be considered? I'd say if you ask people if the way this guy left is fleeing in the most common sense meaning of that verb, the result would be at minimum mixed and as such the Court should have taken the interpretation that best accomplishes the objective of the legislator.

johnnyskeleton

ogre wrote: »

As far as I am concerned knowing the guy or working for his defense is not an evil thing so why would suggesting that be considered as an attack?

You were trying to discredit me or undermine what I'm saying by suggesting that I'm biased. Why else would you have suggested it?

ogre wrote: »

I asked if my example is fleeing or not. Can you provide a yes/no answer for that?

In your case yes, because it's a clear attempt to evade justice. But that is not the situation in the herein case. In the case I highlighted, I would say no, the person would not have fled.

ogre wrote: »

I used this equivocation to show where taking things too literally takes you. You rightfully find this strict literal interpretation of appear/disappear ridiculous, but you insist that it is OK with the word flee. Most dictionaries only list "flee=to run away" (such as Compact Oxford). By that strictest literal sense anyone who is driving or riding or just walking is not fleeing. On the other hand, in the widest sense flee means any method of avoiding something unpleasant, including, but not limited to running, moving, hiding, vanishing, etc. How could you say that meanings #1-#3 represent the "most common sense meaning" and #4 is fanciful and should not be considered? I'd say if you ask people if the way this guy left is fleeing in the most common sense meaning of that verb, the result would be at minimum mixed and as such the Court should have taken the interpretation that best accomplishes the objective of the legislator.

I don't think dissappear can mean absent or not showing up.

I'd say the first three meanings are the most common meanings while the fourth is somewhat tenuous. Flee = dissappear doesn't sit right.

As for asking most people, I think the thing is most people, if they did say that he fled, wouldn't look at the circumstances but would instead look at it from a "he was sentenced in Hungary but didn't serve the sentence, he must have fled "point of view".

I think a more sensible question would be if someone whose movement was not restricted in any way and the authorities are aware of this leaves a country, is that fleeing?

ogre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think dissappear can mean absent or not showing up.

I'd say the first three meanings are the most common meanings while the fourth is somewhat tenuous. Flee = dissappear doesn't sit right.

The judge could have said "flee means what I think it means", as I am the ultimate authority in defining the meanings of words, period. But then it is useless to go to the Oxford Dictionary for substantiating the interpretation and say OK, here are 4 meanings, but the 4th doesn't say what I think the word means, so I ignore it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think a more sensible question would be if someone whose movement was not restricted in any way and the authorities are aware of this leaves a country, is that fleeing?

You agreed that my example is fleeing, as it is a clear attempt to evade justice. That example satisfies your conditions: the bank robber was not restricted to leave for Brasil and at the passport control the authorities were aware that he leaves the country. I am sure though that you'll amend your conditions though

I think we can also agree that this motorist is not accidently not returning to Hungary, but it is a "clear attempt to evade justice". Your words, not mine.

Realize that my claim is not that the term "flee" clearly includes the way this motorist left hungary, but that it is at least debatable. Even if it is just debatable the objective of the EAW should have been considered for the interpretation.

johnnyskeleton

ogre wrote: »

The judge could have said "flee means what I think it means", as I am the ultimate authority in defining the meanings of words, period. But then it is useless to go to the Oxford Dictionary for substantiating the interpretation and say OK, here are 4 meanings, but the 4th doesn't say what I think the word means, so I ignore it.

No, to accept the fourth, less common meaning, above the other three meanings would be to chose an un-natural interpretation over the more common sense meaning.

ogre wrote: »

You agreed that my example is fleeing, as it is a clear attempt to evade justice. That example satisfies your conditions: the bank robber was not restricted to leave for Brasil and at the passport control the authorities were aware that he leaves the country. I am sure though that you'll amend your conditions though

Someone who commits an offence and leaves the country to avoid the police catching him is fleeing, but someone who has been investigated by the authorities, is living openly, and leaves the country completely unhindered by the authorities (when they could prohibit him if they want to) is not.

In the first case, they are running away from the danger of being caught, they are withdrawing hastily, they are making one's escape, and while I don't think you could say that they vanished (because I believe for that they would have to go to a place unknown to do that) by your definition of disappear they did just that.

In the second case, they are not running away from any danger because they are not pursued or detained in any way, they are not withdrawing hastily because they do it openly and with the knowledge of the authorities (i.e. there is nothing to suggest that they were leaving before the police caught on), they are not making their escape because again they are not held captive or being pursued by anyone, and again there is the vanish definition.

I would also criticise your argument because the "passport authorities" immediately after a crime has been committed are very different to the executive and judicial authorities who have the opportunity to restrict a person's movement but don't. So if someone was suspected of robbery in Ireland and said to the gardai, I'm going to Brazil on tuesday and they say fine and let him go, I don't think that would be fleeing

But now that I've answered your question for the third time, can you honestly say that if you were interviewed by the gardai on suspicion of robbery, and they said "yeah, sure, go off to brazil, we don't care" that you subsequently leaving would be fleeing?

ogre wrote: »

I think we can also agree that this motorist is not accidently not returning to Hungary, but it is a "clear attempt to evade justice". Your words, not mine.

I don't think he is. A person is not evading justice if they don't turn themselves in, or if they don't plead guilty to an offence. It is the state's obligation to prosecute offences, and an accused does not have to assist them. It is not up to an accused to investigate the offence for the authorities, nor is it his job to assist the prosecution. If there was some subterfuge or dishonesty involved in his departure from Hungary, then it could properly be considered evading justice. But just leaving a country is not of itself sufficient to be charachterised as a clear attempt to evade justice.

ogre wrote: »

Realize that my claim is not that the term "flee" clearly includes the way this motorist left hungary, but that it is at least debatable. Even if it is just debatable the objective of the EAW should have been considered for the interpretation.

It was debated by the Supreme Court, and if they could have patched up any cracks in the legislation they would have. But they found that to come to any other interpretation of flee would be contrary to the law.

The objectives of the EAW were to:
1) speed up the extradition process for those suspected of crimes, and
2) remove the extradition process and replace it with a system of rendition for persons who have been sentenced in another EU country and who flee from that country.

You could say that this case falls between two stools, you could follow the decision in MJELR v. H that the surrender of someone in similar circumstances can be sought under s.10b instead, but what you can't do is change the clear meaning of the law to achieve the desired result, because that would be to completely ignore the rule of law and the right to fair processes enjoyed by all who come before the courts.

Look, it's perfectly simple, get the government to change the law so that this doesn't happen again. Remove the word from the legislation so that there is no need to prove that someone fled. But don't simply gloss over the problems in the law and in what happened in Hungary because you feel that someone should have been surrendered but wasn't.