District Court licence appeal in Cork [Case still open][Mod warning on post #15]

Grizzly 45

More intrestingly..What happened in the DC in Cork with justice Patwell?'s decision??Silence on boards and the media could be taken both ways..

jap gt

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

More intrestingly..What happened in the DC in Cork with justice Patwell?'s decision??Silence on boards and the media could be taken both ways..

read in local paper today patwell is making a decision tomorrow, would'nt hold my breath though he is a bit of a .....

is the guy in the case a member here

rrpc

jap gt wrote: »

read in local paper today patwell is making a decision tomorrow, would'nt hold my breath though he is a bit of a .....

I always thought Judge Patwell had a reputation for fairness and above all a respect for the law to the extent that he would hold Gardai and Solicitors in contempt regardless of the fallout.

Darr

whats the name of the local paper or is there any online record ?
Darr

rrpc

Darr wrote: »

whats the name of the local paper or is there any online record ?
Darr

There are reporting restrictions in place on the orders of Judge Patwell which to my mind is a very positive thing regardless of the outcome of the case.

sfakiaman

rrpc wrote: »

There are reporting restrictions in place on the orders of Judge Patwell which to my mind is a very positive thing regardless of the outcome of the case.

I would hope the restrictions are only on names and addresses not the decisions made in court.

Darr

As per Jap_gt post there seems to be some mention of it in a paper already so surely there is not a complete blanket ban on reporting from the case ? .

nothing major just curious about how its been reported .
Darr

Grizzly 45

Just got a call on this. WE WON!!Judge Patwell upheld the pistol shooters case!!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Darr

Do you know (with out breaking any rules etc ) what the actual ruling was ?
Darr

rrpc

sfakiaman wrote: »

I would hope the restrictions are only on names and addresses not the decisions made in court.

Of course. I'm sure that anything that would either identify the person or his place of abode or even district would be included in the restrictions.

This is how all these cases should be handled and hopefully from now on will be.

I would also like to remind people that where such restrictions are in place (and in fairness, regardless of whether or not they are), nobody should discuss the details of a case that is still in progress on this forum.

ironsight

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just got a call on this. WE WON!!Judge Platwell upheld the pistol shooters case!!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

CONGRATULATIONSMAY THERE BE MANY MORE VICTORIES

rrpc

AFAIK, there's an adjournment on this so restrictions are still in place.

Tricky1127

Does this mean new people aloud into Pistol Shooting or just who has them B4 can keep them?

Darr

so does that mean that the actual judgement is not going to be made public ? .. seems stange that some say (have gotten a few text about it ) the shooter won but that it cant be mentioned here ? .

Perhaps Im missing something but I would assume that as they are saying he won is that it the case not over ? or is leave to go to for review

sorry if Im missing the point Im not at all fimilar with court dealings
Darr

Rovi

Tricky1127 wrote: »

Does this mean new people aloud into Pistol Shooting or just who has them B4 can keep them?

Assuming this is/was a District Court case, the decision relates solely to the person involved.
We've been constantly reminded that the District Court does NOT set precedent.

Everyone:
Until and when the judgement and any restriction attached to it are officially published, please DO NOT mention any names or other specific details you may be privy to.
This all sounds good, but we don't want to prejudice this particular person's position or anyone else's case by breaching a court order.

jap gt

it was in the corkman, the papers could'nt report his name location or club he shoots with, patwell is somewhat a joke around here, but thats another matter, glad he won and patwell did the right thing.

Grizzly 45

Rovi wrote: »

Assuming this is/was a District Court case, the decision relates solely to the person involved.
We've been constantly reminded that the District Court does NOT set precedent.

Quite true,BUT it does set a "tone"[as my solr explained] to other such like cases.

jap gt

link to yesterdays corkman

http://www.corkman.ie/news/gardax00ed-fear-high-calibre-guns-could-fall-into-criminal-hands-2013354.html

Hibrion

This is brilliant news!! I'm delighted the judge picked up on the super overstepping his mark by imposing a blanket ban on certain things. This case could help with all the districts where moderators have essentially been banned also.
Great to see the system working for a change.

freddieot

Excellent News - Good to see the Judiciary are prepared to look behind the smokescreen and make rational decisions about private gun ownership.

What a disgrace though that a law-abiding citizen had to go to these lengths over something like this while criminals are roaming the streets armed to the teeth.

Let's hope it's the first of many and based on the sheer number of people going to court, or getting ready to go to court, I'm certain it will be.

Sparks

Split out from the Supreme Court appeal as they're two seperate cases and both are of interest...

rowa

freddieot wrote: »

Excellent News - Good to see the Judiciary are prepared to look behind the smokescreen and make rational decisions about private gun ownership.

What a disgrace though that a law-abiding citizen had to go to these lengths over something like this while criminals are roaming the streets armed to the teeth.

Let's hope it's the first of many and based on the sheer number of people going to court, or getting ready to go to court, I'm certain it will be.

this is true freddie , but will it lead to ahern simply going back and banning the pre-nov 08 held pistols if the chief supers are all defeated in court ?
he already has the power to ban anything in the interests of public safety , with three murders so far this year all he has to say is "too many shooting's" and they're gone .

Bananaman

After all the days we have all spent dreading the postman and the dark days lads And ladies have had in being refused their license and hence their sport let us simply look on this for what it is

A bit of good news for one of us, a bit of hope for the rest of us and for the first time in a long time a great reason to be optimistic about the future.

May we have many more days like it.

B'Man

Solidchrome

Great news!

What was this though?

Inspector Finbarr O'Sullivan also argued that the applicant would be shooting at targets that are designed to look very much like a human silhouette.

..scaremongering or grasping at straws?

Mr Mole

Its just a media report, and the case is adjourned for some finalities. Its still a live case. Please dont help the (bad) press by analysing their inaccurate statements.
Give the applicant some space and dont feed the wolves.

jwshooter

Solidchrome wrote: »

Great news!

What was this though?

Inspector Finbarr O'Sullivan also argued that the applicant would be shooting at targets that are designed to look very much like a human silhouette.

..scaremongering or grasping at straws?

but this statement is taking the mans character into question and is not the reason the super refused him.

rrpc

jwshooter wrote: »

but this statement is taking the mans character into question and is not the reason the super refused him.

Have you ever heard the saying: "Throw enough mud..."?

Grizzly 45

The old legal adage;
Weak on law ,argue the facts.Weak on facts ,argue the law.
Weak on both,attack your opponents chacter.No guessing at what stage they are at now.:rolleyes:

Solidchrome

Mr Mole wrote: »

Its just a media report, and the case is adjourned for some finalities. Its still a live case. Please dont help the (bad) press by analysing their inaccurate statements.
Give the applicant some space and dont feed the wolves.

What the..are you in the Prevention of Free Speech Movement or something?

Are you too scared to question a sentence in a press story that you feel you have to tell other people not to do so?

I have and always will challenge anything I want without worrying about some kind of imaginary press retribution. If you are some kind of scared kitten, not even able to question anything, then dont push your fears on others.:mad:

lead loader

Solidchrome wrote: »

What the..are you in the Prevention of Free Speech Movement or something?

Are you too scared to question a sentence in a press story that you feel you have to tell other people not to do so?

I have and always will challenge anything I want without worrying about some kind of imaginary press retribution. If you are some kind of scared kitten, not even able to question anything, then dont push your fears on others.:mad:

In fairness Solid Chrome i think what people are trying to say here is that the case is still before the courts and so the less disscussion about it the better, once the case is finalised i would be all for a full and open disscussion so long as the identity of the applicant is not discussed.

Solidchrome

lead loader wrote: »

In fairness Solid Chrome i think what people are trying to say here is that the case is still before the courts and so the less disscussion about it the better, once the case is finalised i would be all for a full and open disscussion so long as the identity of the applicant is not discussed.

What if it is still before the courts? What do you have to fear?

I questioned the line in a press realease with an open mind, no malice, just a question and was told, more or less, to shut the hell up.

If people are scared to openly discuss a case, whether before the courts or not, then I feel sorry for them- and I feel angry they think they can tell other people not to.

Sparks

Solidchrome wrote: »

What if it is still before the courts? What do you have to fear?

How about one of the four mods being forced to ban you for discussing a sub judice case to prevent boards.ie from being sued for contempt of court?

Once the case is ruled on, everyone's free to talk but while it's before the courts, the law says (in effect) to shut up for a few minutes.

So I'm -- temporarily -- closing the thread. As soon as there's a ruling, we'll reopen it (if anyone hears of the ruling before we do, PM the four mods and one of us will have it open within a few minutes of getting to a computer).

I feel angry they think they can tell other people not to.

They cannot -- but the law can, and does. Not a system of our making.