Crooks on bail

ART6

I always feel like an interloper on this forum since I am not in AGS or any ES, but I do read the opinions with interest as it's interesting to know how the other half lives, so to speak. so forgive me if this topic has already been done to death.

I read in the scandal sheets today about how many violent criminals have been released on bail by the courts in spite of the concern of AGS, and how many of them have gone on to commit more violent crimes and even murder. So. A question from a civvie. If you arrest a violent criminal (I would assume at no little risk to yourself) and he is promptly given bail (the poor soul had a deprived childhood and his hampster died), how do you feel knowing that according to the statistics there is a better than average chance you might have to go through the same exercise again?

metman

ART6 wrote: »

how do you feel knowing that according to the statistics there is a better than average chance you might have to go through the same exercise again?

The more contributors here the merrier

We're lifting the same people day in day out. Most areas suffer from the same problem; a small number of nominals responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. As a result we tend to target our 'prominent nominals' and try to make their lives difficult. To this end we arrest the same people time and time again.

Initially its frustrating, and even now I still suffer the occasional 'what!? He was only locked up day before yesterday' moment, but by and large our job is to put the villains before the court. What happens after that isn't our responsibility.....if it were it'd be a safe bet there'd be a lot less criminals walking the streets.

johnnyskeleton

ART6 wrote: »

and he is promptly given bail (the poor soul had a deprived childhood and his hampster died),

He's not given bail because he has:
1) the right not to have his liberty interfered with save in due course of law;
2) the presumption of innocence; and
3) the right to a fair trial?

Bear in mind that you get your info from "the scandal sheet".

ART6

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He's not given bail because he has:
1) the right not to have his liberty interfered with save in due course of law;
2) the presumption of innocence; and
3) the right to a fair trial?

Bear in mind that you get your info from "the scandal sheet".

I accept the points you make, but in fairness the "scandal sheet" was quoting statistics that were published by the government. It just seems to me that if someone is arrested for violent crime for which he already has an extensive record, then while I would defend the right to liberty I would also defend the right of the general public to protection by the law. I would argue that such a person is likely to be a risk to the public based entirely upon his record and so should not be given bail.

Paulzx

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He's not given bail because he has:
1) the right not to have his liberty interfered with save in due course of law;
2) the presumption of innocence; and
3) the right to a fair trial?

Bear in mind that you get your info from "the scandal sheet".

With all due respect to your legal experise the recent case wher a man was granted bail after being caught walking out of a house with a five year old child and subsequently murdered an innocent woman whilst on bail indicates to me that there are serious problems with our bail laws.

ART6

Paulzx wrote: »

With all due respect to your legal experise the recent case wher a man was granted bail after being caught walking out of a house with a five year old child and subsequently murdered an innocent woman whilst on bail indicates to me that there are serious problems with our bail laws.

Indeed. It was that case that was in my mind when I posted this thread. As a simple layman it seems patently obvious to me that any man who attempts to abduct a five year old child from her home while her parents are there must be a serious danger to society if left at large, and I sincerely believe that any judge who cannot see that is either stupid or negligent or both. Perhaps we should change to the American system of electing judges since at least that might make them a bit more aware of the world around them:mad:

Eru

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He's not given bail because he has:
1) the right not to have his liberty interfered with save in due course of law;
2) the presumption of innocence; and
3) the right to a fair trial?

Bear in mind that you get your info from "the scandal sheet".

1, If his defence believe he is unlawfully detained they can make a Habeous Corpus application. Refusing bail is not interfering with his liberty without due course of law.

2. His guilt hasnt been determined nor is refusing bail making that decision.

3. Sorry but how is remanding someone is custody damaging his right to a fair trial?

johnnyskeleton

Paulzx wrote: »

With all due respect to your legal experise the recent case wher a man was granted bail after being caught walking out of a house with a five year old child and subsequently murdered an innocent woman whilst on bail indicates to me that there are serious problems with our bail laws.

So you take one example and use that to criticise the whole bail system eh? In that case, everyone should be locked up to prevent them from committing any sort of offence. What you want is not reform of the bail laws, but for Judges to be able to predict the future and know with certainty that refusing bail will prevent a future serious crime. In any event, the prosecution are perfectly entitled to make a s.2 bail objection i.e. an objection that if the person is released on bail there is a serious risk that they might commit a further serious offence.

Eru wrote:

1, If his defence believe he is unlawfully detained they can make a Habeous Corpus application. Refusing bail is not interfering with his liberty without due course of law.

A person can only be punished for what they have done, not what they might do. It follows therefore that, other than when there is good reason to refuse bail, a person should be granted bail pending trial. I never mentioned unlawful detention, which is a different concept to deprivation of liberty outside due course of law.

Eru wrote:

2. His guilt hasnt been determined nor is refusing bail making that decision.

Precicely, because his guilt hasn't been determined he is entitled, subject to the established reasons to refuse bail, to be granted bail.

Eru wrote:

3. Sorry but how is remanding someone is custody damaging his right to a fair trial?

It hampers their ability to prepare for trial, can influence a jury if they know the person was refused bail and in the district court can encourage an accused to plead guilty where they might otherwise contest the charges.

happyhappy wrote:

some people who work in the court system cannot see the world outside of the courtroom, it's a simple as that. if it makes sense in a legalistic way they believe that it must be correct and right which unfortunately in the outside world is not the case. they do not have any experience of living with/dealing with/ suffering from criminals outside of a court room and cannot relate to the effects they have on society. this is the most polite way i can post this, my feelings are much stronger!!

Do you not think it's possible that people who work in the court system have a much better idea of what goes on than your average joe on the street? Is it not also possible that the hang em and damn em brigade do not have any experience of the criminal justice system save what they read about?

I'll put it like this; when a person dies because they didn't get treatment in a hospital or because of some other medical mishap, the Minister for Health gets blamed. No one ever thanks the Minister, or even comments on it, when the health system saves someone's life or makes them feel better. But when it goes wrong its as if the whole health system is a mess. The same with the criminal justice system. It's very easy to criticise, but the reality is that there will always be decisions made that, in retrospect were the wrong ones. There are situations where people get released on bail and commit further offences. There are also situations where people who are later found to be innocent are denied bail. At the end of the day, the system we have says that in the absence of any compelling reasons to refuse bail, bail should be granted. There are many reasons for this, and the fact that some crimes could be avoided by refusing bail en masse does not outweigh these, however much you might like to go on about how you are more street smart than people involved in the courts system. The logical next step is to imprison all young men from disadvantaged backgrounds, because they are the demographic most likely to commit offences. And if anyone is seen wearing a tracksuit they should be locked up just in case they are about to rob someone.

Esel

I am much more concerned about the revolving-door prison regime, tbh.

ART6

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So you take one example and use that to criticise the whole bail system eh? In that case, everyone should be locked up to prevent them from committing any sort of offence. What you want is not reform of the bail laws, but for Judges to be able to predict the future and know with certainty that refusing bail will prevent a future serious crime. In any event, the prosecution are perfectly entitled to make a s.2 bail objection i.e. an objection that if the person is released on bail there is a serious risk that they might commit a further serious offence.

Neither Paulzx nor I were taking one example to criticise the system, but rather to demonstrate the potentially serious consequences that can occur when it goes wrong. While I respect your obviously strong feelings on this issue your second sentence is facile. No-one is suggesting that. And as to judges being expected to predict the future, is that not what the whole bail system is about? The person has not been found guilty of anything but the system requires due consideration of whether or not he might be a danger to the public or might abscond if released.


A person can only be punished for what they have done, not what they might do. It follows therefore that, other than when there is good reason to refuse bail, a person should be granted bail pending trial. I never mentioned unlawful detention, which is a different concept to deprivation of liberty outside due course of law.

As above. If bail is refused then surely that person is being punished for what he might do?

Precicely, because his guilt hasn't been determined he is entitled, subject to the established reasons to refuse bail, to be granted bail.

And the established reasons are? Might be a danger to the public? Might abscond?

It hampers their ability to prepare for trial, can influence a jury if they know the person was refused bail and in the district court can encourage an accused to plead guilty where they might otherwise contest the charges.

How does it hamper their ability to prepare for trial? Do they not have full access to legal assistance during remand? Surely anyone is only going to plead guilty if their legal advisers recommend it?

Do you not think it's possible that people who work in the court system have a much better idea of what goes on than your average joe on the street? Is it not also possible that the hang em and damn em brigade do not have any experience of the criminal justice system save what they read about?

Personally I would accept that they have a better idea, but the point is that all too often the judgements handed down have not protected the public as the law is required to do. While there are, no doubt, a vast majority of cases where it has done do, the growing number of cases where it hasn't are clearly a cause of public concern.

I'll put it like this; when a person dies because they didn't get treatment in a hospital or because of some other medical mishap, the Minister for Health gets blamed. No one ever thanks the Minister, or even comments on it, when the health system saves someone's life or makes them feel better. But when it goes wrong its as if the whole health system is a mess. The same with the criminal justice system. It's very easy to criticise, but the reality is that there will always be decisions made that, in retrospect were the wrong ones. There are situations where people get released on bail and commit further offences. There are also situations where people who are later found to be innocent are denied bail. At the end of the day, the system we have says that in the absence of any compelling reasons to refuse bail, bail should be granted. There are many reasons for this, and the fact that some crimes could be avoided by refusing bail en masse does not outweigh these, however much you might like to go on about how you are more street smart than people involved in the courts system. The logical next step is to imprison all young men from disadvantaged backgrounds, because they are the demographic most likely to commit offences. And if anyone is seen wearing a tracksuit they should be locked up just in case they are about to rob someone.

Again with respect, you are creating a tree out of a few grains of sawdust. No-one has suggested refusing bail en-masse, but rather to do so when a defendant's record is such as to suppose that he might be a danger to the public. That is nowhere near the same thing as demanding that everyone in a track suit should be locked up. The person is in court because a Garda arrested him on suspicion that he committed a crime, and wearing a track suit is not yet illegal.

Paulzx

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So you take one example and use that to criticise the whole bail system eh? In that case, everyone should be locked up to prevent them from committing any sort of offence. What you want is not reform of the bail laws, but for Judges to be able to predict the future and know with certainty that refusing bail will prevent a future serious crime. In any event, the prosecution are perfectly entitled to make a s.2 bail objection i.e. an objection that if the person is released on bail there is a serious risk that they might commit a further serious offence.




A person can only be punished for what they have done, not what they might do. It follows therefore that, other than when there is good reason to refuse bail, a person should be granted bail pending trial. I never mentioned unlawful detention, which is a different concept to deprivation of liberty outside due course of law.



Precicely, because his guilt hasn't been determined he is entitled, subject to the established reasons to refuse bail, to be granted bail.



It hampers their ability to prepare for trial, can influence a jury if they know the person was refused bail and in the district court can encourage an accused to plead guilty where they might otherwise contest the charges.



Do you not think it's possible that people who work in the court system have a much better idea of what goes on than your average joe on the street? Is it not also possible that the hang em and damn em brigade do not have any experience of the criminal justice system save what they read about?

I'll put it like this; when a person dies because they didn't get treatment in a hospital or because of some other medical mishap, the Minister for Health gets blamed. No one ever thanks the Minister, or even comments on it, when the health system saves someone's life or makes them feel better. But when it goes wrong its as if the whole health system is a mess. The same with the criminal justice system. It's very easy to criticise, but the reality is that there will always be decisions made that, in retrospect were the wrong ones. There are situations where people get released on bail and commit further offences. There are also situations where people who are later found to be innocent are denied bail. At the end of the day, the system we have says that in the absence of any compelling reasons to refuse bail, bail should be granted. There are many reasons for this, and the fact that some crimes could be avoided by refusing bail en masse does not outweigh these, however much you might like to go on about how you are more street smart than people involved in the courts system. The logical next step is to imprison all young men from disadvantaged backgrounds, because they are the demographic most likely to commit offences. And if anyone is seen wearing a tracksuit they should be locked up just in case they are about to rob someone.

I have no legal training and i am not attempting to quote the law verbatim or in any legalistic way. I don't pretend to know the exact reasons for granting or refusing bail. I am no more than an average man on the street.

However, my understanding of our criminal laws are that they are there to protect that average man on the street from those that wish harm and damage to normal society.

Nowhere did i say that blanket bans on bail should apply. You are correct to say each case is diferent.

The example i used was to show where it has gone wrong.

If you think that a man caught red handed kidnapping a 5 year old child from her bed who also has previous convictions should be released on bail you live in a different universe. The safety of society is not best served by this. Were the two young children left motherless by his subsequent actions protected?

If you think there were compelling reasons to not refuse this man bail we are never going to agree

metman

Paulzx wrote: »

If you think there were compelling reasons to not refuse this man bail....

johnnyskeleton

Paulzx wrote: »

If you think that a man caught red handed kidnapping a 5 year old child from her bed who also has previous convictions should be released on bail you live in a different universe. The safety of society is not best served by this. Were the two young children left motherless by his subsequent actions protected?

If you think there were compelling reasons to not refuse this man bail we are never going to agree

I don't want to comment on particular cases because I do not know the full ins and outs of the case, but it is easy to say in retrospect that he should have been refused bail, but was it forseen that he would go on to kill someone? If so, the gardai could have brought a s.2 objection to bail and if done correctly he may well have been refused bail. I'm not in any way criticising the Gardai for this, but nor do I think judges or the whole criminal justice system could be criticised. The reality is that we cannot forsee the future and sometimes this can happen. Equally, we have seen a lot of innocent people being refused bail. The system cannot be perfect, so its a question of getting the right balance.

At the end of the day if Gardai want to see people refused bail they will make more strenuous objections to bail.

Eru

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I we have seen a lot of innocent people being refused bail.

whoa there, back this up please. Heres one for you and to be fair, I have not yet looked into it myself just going on personal opinion:
A, How many people remanded in custody are then found not guilty?
B, How many people remanded in custody are then found guily?
C, How many people remanded on bail are then found not guilty?
D, How many people remanded on bail are then found guilty?
E, How many offences were commited by people currently on bail / temporary release / early release / suspended sentences?

When you have an idea of those figures then you can make such a comment.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

At the end of the day if Gardai want to see people refused bail they will make more strenuous objections to bail.

How much more can the objections be than a S2 or high court objection?

AlekSmart

I don't want to comment on particular cases because I do not know the full ins and outs of the case, but it is easy to say in retrospect that he should have been refused bail, but was it forseen that he would go on to kill someone? If so, the gardai could have brought a s.2 objection to bail and if done correctly he may well have been refused bail. I'm not in any way criticising the Gardai for this, but nor do I think judges or the whole criminal justice system could be criticised. The reality is that we cannot forsee the future and sometimes this can happen. Equally, we have seen a lot of innocent people being refused bail. The system cannot be perfect, so its a question of getting the right balance.

This all presupposes we are living in some socio-legal utopia which sees Gardai provided with enough time and resources to submit "correct" s.2 objections" to bail (and I suspect that these will need to be ABSOLUTELY,if not perfectly, correct).

There is little doubt in my poorly educated mind that our Judiciary and Criminal Justice System requires far MORE criticism than it currently recieves and that that criticism needs to be taken on board by those entities.

The case at issue here is both recent and serious in the extreme but the facts concerning offences committed by persons free on bail are considerably wider reaching than this case itself.

AFAICS The "right balance" is currently one where serious and serial criminals in conjunction with a well funded coterie of criminal lawyers can effectively run the State ragged before walking free to return to "lookin after business" back on the streets.

This may not sound nice nor is it meant to but I suspect the reality in most Garda districts will ensure that s.2 objections and the rest are compiled under the most compelling pressures whilst the offenders rebuttal will be done at leisure and perhaps with a fine cognac to stimulate the cerebral lining ?

johnnyskeleton

Eru wrote: »

whoa there, back this up please. Heres one for you and to be fair, I have not yet looked into it myself just going on personal opinion:
A, How many people remanded in custody are then found not guilty?
B, How many people remanded in custody are then found guily?
C, How many people remanded on bail are then found not guilty?
D, How many people remanded on bail are then found guilty?
E, How many offences were commited by people currently on bail / temporary release / early release / suspended sentences?

When you have an idea of those figures then you can make such a comment.

I never suggested a % or amount of them, just that it happens and it does happen. Therefore I am perfectly entitled to make that comment. Here's a recent example:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-cleared-after-year-in-custody-1412036.html

The point is that you can't simply lock up a whole class of people based on a perceived likelihood that members of that class will commit further offences. The logical extension of this is that you could simply lock them up before they are ever charged with a crime to prevent them from the crimes that they might commit in the future. Each bail case must be looked at differently but in any case, the purpose of a remand in custody, other than when bail is refused under s.2 is not to prevent people from committing further crimes, its sole purpose is to ensure that they turn up for trial.

Eru wrote: »

How much more can the objections be than a S2 or high court objection?

S.2 objections could be made more regularly. I would also be in favour of allowing appeals from the district court to the high court where bail was granted.

AlekSmart wrote: »

There is little doubt in my poorly educated mind that our Judiciary and Criminal Justice System requires far MORE criticism than it currently recieves and that that criticism needs to be taken on board by those entities.

The system is amenable to criticism, but constructive criticism, not the "stupid judges and crooked lawyers are killing our babies" type criticism. The fact that you say it needs more criticism generally without making specific criticisms is extremely unhelpful. Don't forget that the people who baselessly deride the criminal justice system undermine the system far more than any decisions of judges. I often criticise aspects of the system which seem wrong to me or which could be better, but it annoys me that so many people have an idea that the criminal justice system is broken without suggesting any ways in which it could be dealt with better. People somehow have this idea that the legal system is capable of preventing crime but its not. Harsher sentences don't discourage crime significantly (look at California, where they have the death penalty and high murder rates) and as regards bail, no one can predict who is going to commit further crimes while on bail.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The case at issue here is both recent and serious in the extreme but the facts concerning offences committed by persons free on bail are considerably wider reaching than this case itself.

It is easy to say that in the recent case he should have been denied bail in retrospect and you can be sure if the judge thought for a second he would go off and kill someone he would have been refused bail, but at the time, the judge (nor the gardai) may not have had any idea that he would commit further crimes. Indeed, it's entirely possible that the gardai made no objection to bail and so you can't blame the courts.

AlekSmart wrote: »

AFAICS The "right balance" is currently one where serious and serial criminals in conjunction with a well funded coterie of criminal lawyers can effectively run the State ragged before walking free to return to "lookin after business" back on the streets.

I don't understand this point, other than it being lawyer bashing. How do they run the State ragged? By making the state substantiate their bail applications?

AlekSmart wrote: »

This may not sound nice nor is it meant to but I suspect the reality in most Garda districts will ensure that s.2 objections and the rest are compiled under the most compelling pressures whilst the offenders rebuttal will be done at leisure and perhaps with a fine cognac to stimulate the cerebral lining ?

No, both sides have more or less the same amount of time to prepare for a bail application. In the defence case, it is usually done on the first day in court so far from being done at leisure with a fine cognac, it is most likely done in the cells below the courts (which usually smell like a toilet FWIW) with just a few moments to take hurried instructions. A s.2 application is often done with advance notice, but during that time the accused is remanded in custody.

The problem I have with your comments is that they are based on a perception that you have about the legal system that you assume to be correct but which isn't.

metman

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Harsher sentences don't discourage crime significantly (look at California, where they have the death penalty and high murder rates)

They do however prevent crime. For if Billy Burglar is locked up, he's not committing burglary.

and as regards bail, no one can predict who is going to commit further crimes while on bail.

I think its fair to say that those with substantial previous for offending on bail are likely to re-offend on bail.

johnnyskeleton

metman wrote: »

They do however prevent crime. For if Billy Burglar is locked up, he's not committing burglary.

He mightn't be out there committing burglary, but there will be hundreds of others who will be. Locking people up doesn't stop crime, it merely punishes wrongdoers and, at best, slightly discourages others from committing crime. Since you seem to be a fan of the wire, I'll quote Carver for you; you can't call the war on drugs a war, because "wars end".

metman wrote: »

I think its fair to say that those with substantial previous for offending on bail are likely to re-offend on bail.

In such a case, they can bring a s.2 objection to bail. If they can show that the person is likely to commit further serious crimes while on bail the judge will refuse bail. But that's not the issue here. The issue seems to be a general criticism of the bail laws and judicial system based on a perception that most people on bail reoffend. If this is the case, the gardai should make more strenuous bail objections. But there is no reality to refusing everybody bail because statistics show that 1 in 4 people on bail commit another offence, or whatever statistics are bandied about these days.

Paulzx

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He mightn't be out there committing burglary, but there will be hundreds of others who will be. Locking people up doesn't stop crime, it merely punishes wrongdoers and, at best, slightly discourages others from committing crime..

So what you are saying is that the basis of the criminal justice system in every devolped country in the world i.e locking people up if they persist in commiting crime, is completely wrong. What's your alternative? Standing persistant criminals in the bold corner and no tv for a week.

Nobody is saying that every lawbreaker should be in prison. Each crime is obviously different. However, what is your solution to Billy Burglar with 200 convictions for robbery? A Fas course.

Maybe seen as he's so fond of robbery he should be a senior bank executive:D

metman

Paulzx wrote: »

Billy Burglar with 200 convictions for robbery?

That's an unfortunate name for a robber Paul

metman

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He mightn't be out there committing burglary, but there will be hundreds of others who will be. Locking people up doesn't stop crime, it merely punishes wrongdoers and, at best, slightly discourages others from committing crime. Since you seem to be a fan of the wire, I'll quote Carver for you; you can't call the war on drugs a war, because "wars end".

So by your logic, as others are still committing crime, despite Billy doing a 10 year stretch, we should resign ourselves to the fact that long sentences do not stop crime? They certainly stop Billy from committing crime, he's locked up!

As for punishing wrongdoers, well I'll have some more of that as well please.

Discouraging other similar minded bottom-feeders? Fantastic. 3 out of 3.

Locking up prolific offenders for lengthy periods has been proven to drastically reduce crime figures in neighbourhoods targetted by said offenders. The secret? Locking up the bad guys.

Paulzx

metman wrote: »

That's an unfortunate name for a robber Paul

Same difference to me ye smart arse

The only people that know the difference are you and your donut eating, coffee swilling, flat footed collegues:D

I don't care whether my house is burgled or robbed. Just catch the fecker!!!

johnnyskeleton

Paulzx wrote: »

So what you are saying is that the basis of the criminal justice system in every devolped country in the world i.e locking people up if they persist in commiting crime, is completely wrong. What's your alternative? Standing persistant criminals in the bold corner and no tv for a week.

No, I said that it was punishment, not deterrence.

metman wrote: »

So by your logic, as others are still committing crime, despite Billy doing a 10 year stretch, we should resign ourselves to the fact that long sentences do not stop crime? They certainly stop Billy from committing crime, he's locked up!

My point is this: in response to AlekSmart's general criticism of the criminal justice system, I pointed out that the criminal justice system (not just ours, but every country's) cannot possibly prevent crime. Among the points I made was that harsher sentences do not have a significant deterrent impact on crime levels. I accept that if one individual is in prison he will (by and large) be prevented from committing further offences, but that has nothing to do with my point.

So yes, we should accept that long sentences do not stop crime. Indeed, I doubt there has ever been a punishment that has ever prevented crime. Making sweeping statements about crime, long sentences and refusing bail in general terms is not, in my view, any kind of solution. Instead it must be looked at from the individual's point of view. So let's look at this Billy the Burglar you are so fond of. If the gardai arrest him for an offence and suspect he might commit further offences while on bail, they can make objections to bail. If the judge thinks that, when sentencing him, the only way to punish him and to prevent him from committing further crimes is to send him to jail, then the judge will send him to jail.

My point is that each case should be looked at individually, and that it is a mistake to infer a general conclusion from one example. I trust you are in full agreement with me, as you seem so fond of this Billy fellow.

happyhappy wrote: »

johnnyskeleton, nobody is saying lock up everyone from a certain socio economic group as you seem to think. i am suggesting refusing bail to serial offenders. i don't care if the are millionairs and grew up with a silver spoon, if they are serial offenders on bail then they are not entitled to bail in my opinion.

No, the only reasons to refuse bail are because the accused might not show up for trial, might interfere with witnesses (or with the wider CJ process) or because the gardai have brought a specific statutory objection to bail on the basis that the individual is likely to commit further serious offences while on bail. If someone is likely to commit further offences then the judge will refuse bail. And if someone is a "serial offender" the gardai should have no problem getting bail refused. But we can't simply take a general approach and say "let's lock em up, just in case".

happyhappy wrote: »

as for you saying what difference would refusing one criminal bail make when there are 100's committing crime - this is ridiculous. if everybody had that attitide the country would fall apart.

Can you quote where I said "what difference would refusing one criminal bail make"?

happyhappy wrote: »

as for you saying make a 'strenuous' sect 2 bail application, whats the difference between this and a normal sect 2 bail app?? should gardai beg the judge now?? it takes a good bit of work to prepare a sect 2 bail app and is given on oath in a fair manner. i know for a fact that some evidence given defending the applications is total lies based on the instructions (not the solicitors fault as they are their instructions frm the client in fairness) but they are treated as fact and given as much weight as the sworn evidence therefore creating an imbalance.

Again, I didn't say a more strenuous section 2 bail application, I said a more strenuous bail application. They can do this by, for a start, making objections to bail, presenting evidence in court to support their objections, and, in the cases where they believe the person might commit further serious offences, bring a s.2 objection.

happyhappy wrote:

but they are treated as fact and given as much weight as the sworn evidence therefore creating an imbalance.

This really depends on the judge. Some judges will only accept applications based on sworn evidence. However, the fact that the default position is to grant bail is probably why it seems that as much weight is given to submissions as is given to sworn evidence. As an aside, the Supreme Court has recently upheld the Gardai's right to give unsworn submissions to support their applications, so it goes both ways.

happyhappy wrote:

you make a fair point that nobody can predict the future, but if you can't see that a person with over 100 previous convictions, some on bail, isn't going to commit more offences on bail then i am afraid you have your head in the sand my friend.

While someone with over 100 previous convictions is probably likely to commit more offences while on bail, they aren't necessarily going to. If they are the type that will commit more serious offences then a section 2 application can be brought. That way, the judge will have evidence before him or her upon which to make a good prediction.