Willie O'Dea to blame or the solicitor to blame

pirelli

Willie O'Dea was recorded by a journalist in an off the cuff interview. Willie made remarks about his political opponent. The remarks were defamatory. The defamatory remarks were in regard to the ownership of a property and the actionable part of the remarks made by Willie O'Dea were along the lines that the political opponent had part owned an apartment.

The piece was edited and published and the political opponent sought an injunction preventing Willie O'Dea from repeating the falsehood.

Willie O'Dea therefore had to prepare an affidavit and it was used at the hearing to have the injunction dismissed....

As it transpires that the affidavit in which Willie O'Dea denied making the remarks in such a fashion was incorrect inso far as the recording kept by the publisher proves that indeed Willie O'Dea did say the actionable part of the defamation.

Today Willie O'Dea announced to the Dail that he had not heard the recording before writing his affidavit although he was very aware a recording was made and existed. He said something along the lines that at some time after making his affadavit and after the injunction hearing he listened to the tape of the interview and discovered that his affidavit did not reflect the facts as recorded.

*****************************************************************


Is the solicitor and legal representative in the case not guilty of conspiracy to commit perjury
Could a solicitor witness the affidavit if indeed he had known it to be false
I know justice is blind but would the judge not have used his or her sensibilities and been able to judge that an important aspect of the case was missing and that its eventual discovery could potentially cause a scandal to the irish goverment. How can a Judge trust a solicitor if they are immune from discipline even if they conspire to deceive him or her.



In the event the solicitor might not have had the recording.

In case such as this the recording would be couriered very quickly from the publisher if sought. Many people would agree it's possible that the recording could be courieried quickly to the solicitors. At least the solicitor would try to get access to it.

I thinks it's reasonable to assume the solicitor would try to get access. On the other hand he may not have. Failure to cross reference in such a matter would leave more than possibility that blunder might cause the irish goverment embarrassment and cause much harm to his client and where such a blunder would quite obviously cause a scandal it would seem reasonable that the solicitor had a duty to seek the recording unless of course he was instructed otherwise.

Nothwithstanding the publisher being uncooperative and introducing an unreasonable delay in getting the recording to the solicitor's it is expected that the solcitor was under a duty to get the recording and establish a case for his client.

God forbid Willie O'Dea was charged with a crime and the solictor treated him as poorly and he was falsely convicted it would be treacherous.

Our elected representatives are also entitled to good legal representation. It is scandalous if our legal guardians can bring damage a goverment and bring scandal to our country.

I believe there should be a tribunial into the poor handling of this case by the legal profession. At the very least we might find Willie O'Dea was merely a client that was poorly represented and need not stand down from goverment or we might find a collusion of an even greater scandal that should be the beginning of new legislation ensuring that our citizens are properly and fully representated by the legal profession rather than have the peoples eyes stitched shut with finely threaded wool.

blueythebear

pirelli wrote: »

Willie O'Dea was recorded by a journalist in an off the cuff interview. Willie made remarks about his political opponent. The remarks were defamatory. The defamatory remarks were in regard to the ownership of a property and the actionable part of the remarks made by Willie O'Dea were that the political opponent had part owned an apartment.

The piece was edited and published and the political oponent sought an injunction preventing Willie O'Dea from repeating the falsehood.

Willie O'Dea therefore had to prepare an affidavit and it was used at the hearing to have the injunction dismissed....

As it transpires that the affidavit in which Willie O'Dea denied making the remarks in such a fashion was incorrect inso far as the recording kept by the publisher proves that indeed Willie O'Dea did say the actionable part of the defamation.

Today Willie O'Dea announced to the Dail that he had not heard the recording before writing his affidavit although he was very aware a recording was made and existed. He said something along the lines that at some time after making his affadavit and after the injunction hearing he listened to the tape of the interview and discovered that his affidavit did not reflect the facts as recorded.

*****************************************************************


Is the solicitor in the case not guilty of conspiracy to commit perjury. The solicitor could not witness the affidavit if indeed he had known it to be false.

On the other hand the solicitor might not have had the recording.

In case such as this the recording would be couriered very quickly from the publisher if sought. Many people would agree it's possible that the recording could be courieried quickly to the solicitors. At least the solicitor would try to get access to it.

I thinks it's reasonable to assume he would. On the other hand he may not have. In this case such a blunder might put the office of goverment under scrutiny and where such a blunder would quite obviously cause a scandal it would seem reasonable that the solicitor had a duty to seek the recording.

Nothwithstanding the publisher being uncooperative and introducing an unreasonable delay in getting the recording to the solicitor's it is expected that the solcitor was under a duty to get the recording and establish a case for his client.

God forbid Willie O'Dea was charged with a crime and the solictor treated him as poorly and he was falsely convicted it would be treacherous.

Our elected representatives are also entitled to good legal representation. It is scandalous if our legal guardians can bring damage a goverment and bring scandal to our country.

The Barrister also it seems also seems to practice law along the same line which certainly couldn't be the spirit of the Barrister code of conduct.

I believe there should be a tribunial into the poor handling of this case by the legal profession. At the very least we might find Willie O'Dea was merely a client that was poorly represented and need not stand down from goverment or we might find a collusion of an even greater scandal that should be the beginning of new legislation ensuring that our citizens are properly and fully representated by the legal profession rather than humiliated and ripped off.

The solicitor can't be done for this as when a solicitor swears a document, they don't swear to it's veracity. They merely swear that the person who made the affidavit, signs it in their presence.

Any possible penalties in relation to any alleged falsehoods in the affidavit, are Willie O'Dea's responsibility (if there are any problems in that regard). He is a solicitor and should have known better if this is the case. It could have been that he made an honest mistake but there's no way to say this for sure.

Your last paragraph to be honest sounds like you have an axe to grind with the legal profession. If a false affidavit was made, it was Willie O'Dea who falsified it and this may not even be the case if he did believe the statements in the affidavit at the time.

pirelli

blueythebear wrote: »

The solicitor can't be done for this as when a solicitor swears a document, they don't swear to it's veracity. They merely swear that the person who made the affidavit, signs it in their presence.

Any possible penalties in relation to any alleged falsehoods in the affidavit, are Willie O'Dea's responsibility (if there are any problems in that regard). He is a solicitor and should have known better if this is the case. It could have been that he made an honest mistake but there's no way to say this for sure.

Your last paragraph to be honest sounds like you have an axe to grind with the legal profession. If a false affidavit was made, it was Willie O'Dea who falsified it and this may not even be the case if he did believe the statements in the affidavit at the time.

I just realised I have an axe to grind. It's not the interpretation of the legislation that forces me to grind plumes of sparks from my blade it is the unprofessionalism of the solicitor and court. The solicitor had to have listened to the recording and he must have received a copy form the publisher. It seems reasonable that it should be his duty to get that recording. It can be established when he got the recording and also it should be asked why he didn't seek the recording. If Willie O "Dea instructed him not to then we can lay the blame more squarely on his shoulders.


Should the solicotor have acted appropiately he would have sought the recording in an efficent but urgent manner. On receiving the recording he would have had to have advised Willy O'Dea.

This puts Willie O'Dea in even more trouble.Therefore it appears that what has happened is that Willie O'Dea instructed his solicitor not to seek the recording or delay the receipt of the recording which is where we find oursleves now. Perhaps he wanted to save on postage money.

That's a strong logical assumption and the other outcome is the solicitor did not bother to seek the recording or Willi O'Dea told him it was shorthand.

Then there is the judge. They are meant to be shrewd and intelligent people. He would have wondered if there was notes of the interview and wether there was a recording. He should have been mindful of such a scandal and instead did not vindicate a mans good name and also helped cause a scandal to the irish goverment.

How can we let men of such soft minds like this sit as judges or act as solicitors. It seems that Willie had merely to give a little puff and the wigs just fell over their eyes.

blueythebear

pirelli wrote: »

I just realised I have an axe to grind. It's not the interpretation of the legislation that forces me to grind plumes of sparks from my blade it is the unprofessionalism of the solicitor and court. The solicitor had to have listened to the recording and he must have received a copy form the publisher. It seems reasonable that it should be his duty to get that recording. It can be established when he got the recording and also it should be asked why he didn't seek the recording. If Willie O "Dea instructed him not to then we can lay the blame more squarely on his shoulders.

Should the solicotor have acted appropiately he would have sought the recording in an efficent but urgent manner. On receiving the recording he would have had to have advised Willy O'Dea.

This puts Willie O'Dea in even more trouble.Therefore it appears that what has happened is that Willie O'Dea instructed his solicitor not to seek the recording or delay the receipt of the recording which is where we find oursleves now. Perhaps he wanted to save on postage money.

That's a strong logical assumption and the other outcome is the solicitor did not bother to seek the recording or Willi O'Dea told him it was shorthand.

Then there is the judge. They are meant to be shrewd and intelligent people. He would have wondered if there was notes of the interview and wether there was a recording. He should have been mindful of such a scandal and instead did not vindicate a mans good name and also helped cause a scandal to the irish goverment.

How can we let men of such soft minds like this sit as judges or act as solicitors. It seems that Willie had merely to give a little puff and the wigs just fell over their eyes.

The obvious first thing to do would have been is to find out if there was a tape of the interview but you have no idea of whether or not the tape was supplied before or after the affidavit was made. It could have been that the Journalist would not release the tape to one or both sides citing journalistic privilege. Willie O'Dea could have made an honest mistake (or maybe not). He made an affidavit in April 09 based on his recollection of an interview in March 09 (so he says) and at that time there was no tape available.

I don't know how the tape came to light but there's no evidence that it was available at the time of the affidavit and it is not incumbent on either solicitor to seek a tape on the offchance that there may be one in existence. Yes, it would have saved everyone alot of hassle if it was but again, we have no clue as to why the tape was not made available.

As for any wrongdoing on the judge's part, there was none. The matter did not go to trial, as it was settled out of court so a judge did not decide on any substantial matters in the case.

pirelli

blueythebear wrote: »

The obvious first thing to do would have been is to find out if there was a tape of the interview but you have no idea of whether or not the tape was supplied before or after the affidavit was made. It could have been that the Journalist would not release the tape to one or both sides citing journalistic privilege. Willie O'Dea could have made an honest mistake (or maybe not). He made an affidavit in April 09 based on his recollection of an interview in March 09 (so he says) and at that time there was no tape available.

I don't know how the tape came to light but there's no evidence that it was available at the time of the affidavit and it is not incumbent on either solicitor to seek a tape on the offchance that there may be one in existence. Yes, it would have saved everyone alot of hassle if it was but again, we have no clue as to why the tape was not made available.

As for any wrongdoing on the judge's part, there was none. The matter did not go to trial, as it was settled out of court so a judge did not decide on any substantial matters in the case.

The judge dismissed the injunction which yer man was seeking in order to vindicate his good name. The judge should have raised an eyebrow at the fact no evidence was tendered.

The solicitor for the plaintiff also must/should have brought this to the attention of the judge.

Have we to just accept that the courts are such a push over and Willie O'Dea can change his affidavit after the hearing. He took a gamble at the Courts and that's just tough for the electorate and irelands international reputation that yer man was mistaken on his recollection of events.

It is scandalous not because a man has a poor recollection of events but that the courts accept such a poor performance in the courts once everything has legal lingo to it. It would never happen in Britian & look Spain threw out their goverment when they tried to blame the madrid bombing on the Basques.

Ireland should be called the never ending Dreyfuss affair and the tax payer is Dreyfuss.

blueythebear

pirelli wrote: »

The judge dismissed the injunction which yer man was seeking in order to vindicate his good name. The judge should have raised an eyebrow at the fact no evidence was tendered.

The solicitor for the plaintiff also must/should have brought this to the attention of the judge.

Have we to just accept that the courts are such a push over and Willie O'Dea can change his affidavit after the hearing. He took a gamble at the Courts and that's just tough for the electorate and irelands international reputation that yer man was mistaken on his recollection of events.

It is scandalous not because a man has a poor recollection of events but that the courts accept such a poor performance in the courts once everything has legal lingo to it. It would never happen in Britian & look Spain threw out their goverment when they tried to blame the madrid bombing on the Basques.

Ireland should be called the never ending Dreyfuss affair and the tax payer is Dreyfuss.

It is scandalous if Willie O'Dea was aware of the actual contents of the recorded interview and still signed the affidavit. I don't think that the courts have any culpability here though. The injunction application was dismissed on the basis of the affidavit I (this was the evidence you say was never produced) and at the time there was no evidence to the contrary.

If the solicitor for the plaintiff was aware of the fact that there was evidence to the contrary (i.e. of the recording), he would have produced a replying affidavit to this effect in support of his injunction application. If he failed to do that, he would be negligent in his duty to his client, not to mention the fact that he would inevitably fail in his injunction application and ultimately, the action itself. This would have ended in a costly legal bill for the client which would most likely mean that the plaintiff's solicitor would not get paid!

When the details of the recording came to his knowledge, Willie O'Dea settled the matter out of court. If it had gone to court, then the question of perjury would have been raised and he could have possibly been prosecuted as a result but it was settled so we'll never know.

While I agree that the matter raises serious issues, these issues relate to the integrity of our Minister for Defence and whether or not he knowingly produced a false affidavit.

Maximilian

It's nonsense to suggest the solicitor had any culpability here. A solicitor doesn't make the affidavit, the client does. A solicitor has no obligation of any sort to investigate the underlying facts. Perhaps if he knew they were false but there's nothing to suggest that was the case here.

In fact the whole thread is nonsense & borderline defamatory itself. Grind your axe elsewhere.