Handcuffed in court

Shield

Just reading this story in The Indo and I notice that they were all handcuffed in court.

This could be ignorance of Irish law on my part, but is this shaky legal ground? Is the accused person not supposed to be presented to the judge as innocent until he decides they are guilty? Is it enough to say that they weren't cooperating with prison officers yesterday, so we're handcuffing them in court today?

I'm thinking Human Rights breaches will be alleged for this.

Comments?

Bosco boy

the answer is in the article, if they behaved themselves there would not have been cuffed, the prison officers, judge, officers of the court, gardai and members of the public have a right to be protected if there is a genuine threat. the officers dealing with them are professional and are best place to make that call. The judge also agreed with them, if the judge had ordered them to be uncuffed they would have been imediately. This is not all that uncommon.

johnnyskeleton

psni wrote: »

Is the accused person not supposed to be presented to the judge as innocent unless he decides they are guilty?

FYP.

These men are going to be tried without a jury, perhaps on no more evidence than the opinion of a garda. Appearing handcuffed is the least of their worries.

The rule is that they cannot be put before a jury in handcuffs. A judge is presumed to be able to compartmentalise and remove the fact of their being in custody from his mind.

maidhc

psni wrote: »

I'm thinking Human Rights breaches will be alleged for this.

Comments?

Not the crowd to be getting worked up about Human Rights over tbh.

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

Not the crowd to be getting worked up about Human Rights over tbh.

All humans have rights, including the right to a fair trial. Take that away from one person and you will eventually take it away from everyone.

nuac

saw a guy run amok in a court once. Took four gardai to restrain him. He terrified one of the prosecution witnesses. Gardai right to take no chances.

Delancey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

FYP.
The rule is that they cannot be put before a jury in handcuffs. A judge is presumed to be able to compartmentalise and remove the fact of their being in custody from his mind.

This is the key point I believe - a judge is supposed to be beyond being influenced by such things . I suspect were a jury present the defence would make hay from it and possibly set up grounds for an appeal.

Turner

Sometimes it is necessary. And in these cases would probably have prevented these attacks.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/gardai-recovering-from-acid-attack-115713.html


http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/deft-gardai-foil-attack-on-judge-in-court-2183920.html

Shield

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

FYP.

These men are going to be tried without a jury, perhaps on no more evidence than the opinion of a garda. Appearing handcuffed is the least of their worries.

The rule is that they cannot be put before a jury in handcuffs. A judge is presumed to be able to compartmentalise and remove the fact of their being in custody from his mind.

Thanks for the FYP. I worded it wrongful.

It's the jury thing that got me. I knew there was something about people appearing handcuffed in court.

We bow to your wisdom once again Mr. Skeleton.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All humans have rights, including the right to a fair trial. Take that away from one person and you will eventually take it away from everyone.

Shouldnt humans have some sort of humanity in them?

dermot_sheehan

Practice in England and Wales appears to be it should be done as a last resort and it should be the presiding judge who decided upon application by the prosecution and not the prison service escorts.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/handcuffing_of_defendents/

johnnyskeleton

k_mac wrote: »

Shouldnt humans have some sort of humanity in them?

Trying to suggest that some people are not humans is a great tactic to allow genocides and other severe humanitarian disasters.

They might be guilty, they might not be, but they are definately humans and they definately deserve rights.

The_Morrigan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They might be guilty, they might not be, but they are definately humans and they definately deserve rights.

Think deserve is the wrong word - everyone is entitled to rights, but that doesn't mean they actually deserve them. Rights are not absolute and can be taken away in certain circumstances, like these 8 guys, who were also denied their right to freedom as they weren't released on bail and have been in custody since their arrest in April.
The gardai have been dealing with them since April at least, if not before, and considering their attitude towards the court, maybe it was justified.

Bosco boy

gabhain7 wrote: »

Practice in England and Wales appears to be it should be done as a last resort and it should be the presiding judge who decided upon application by the prosecution and not the prison service escorts.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/handcuffing_of_defendents/

it would be standard practice for the prison officers or gardai to inform the prosecution that there is a security issue with the prisioner and that they may still need to be restrained when the case is called, the prosecution will inform the judge of this and the judge can decide, judges are generally smart people with experience of the system as they have come through it as solicitors or barristors and will have seen how unpredictable an enviornment a court room can be and they dont like to take unnecessary risks. The prisoner will remain cuffed unless the judge orders if they are a risk.

skyhighflyer

I've nothing to add to what the above posters have said on this: the judge is presumed to be able to ignore the prejudicial effect of accused appearing in handcuffs. A jury might not be able to do so.

I suppose it's similar to how a judge can consider evidence during a voir dire which he or she might ultimately decide to exclude from consideration by the jury. The point is that the jury don't get to see the evidence but the judge can because they are presumed to be professional or detached enough to make an objective judgment about the situation.

I think it's all a matter of balance: if an accused is likely to pose a threat to himself or to others in the courtroom then if handcuffs are the only way to restrain them then they can quite legitimately be used.

However, I can distinctly remember an Irish case (possibly a number of cases) where convictions were ruled unsafe because a non-violent witness appeared before a jury in handcuffs.

Untimately though, I wouldn't like for Ireland to end up like the US where defendants routinely appear in bright orange jumpsuits, rigid handcuffs, leg shackles, belly chains and sometimes even gags or masks :eek:. I never understood how a jury was supposed to look objectively at an accused's case when everything about the accused's appearance is screaming 'criminal'.

murrayp4

I think it reasonable to believe a judge can ignore the fact a person is in handcuffs. A judge, as mentioned previously, would have worked within the system for years and would be very familiar with seeing both guilty and innocent people in handcuffs (not necessarily before the court)
On the point of the American system, would I be right in saying that defendants only appear in chains and jump-suits during the arraignment and following that in their normal cloths before the jury??

Jo King

All of the accused in Limerick were present on a return for trial. All the Judge was required to do was see that they were served with books of evidence and give them alibi warnings before remanding to the court of trial. The accused's being in handcuffs before him could have no influence on whether they were ultimately found guilty. That judge will not be involved in the trial.

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All humans have rights, including the right to a fair trial. Take that away from one person and you will eventually take it away from everyone.

Yes, but if those guys won't behave in court, then I'm not sure what they are hoping for. Likewise, if there is a possibility of witnesses being intimidated, they can hardly be surprised if they get shipped off to the Special Criminal Court!

Mark25

I've been in court a few times recently and was watching the cases before mine. One guy was brought into the court in handcuffs and he was giving trouble to the guards. Another guy started shouting out at the judge and making threats and he was put in cuffs too. This was only the District Court so it was only the judge who saw it.

When I was in the Summons Court at the Richmond there were 2 guys with prison officers in the court and they were handcuffed and then chained to prison officers waiting for their cases (one was having a mobile phone in prison). What I thought was strange was that they went up to the front with the guard and then he took off the cuffs and the guys sat down in their seats uncuffed - but the judge had seen them in teh cuffs and having them taken off so not sure what was the point in doing it.

When I was going through court myself I got a mix up with the dates and ended up with a bench warrant. Eventhough I went to the Garda station myself I ended up getting arrested for missing court and then got transferred to the Bridewell to spend the night there and was handcuffed on the way there. So if that happens to somebody doing the right thing I'm not surprised it happens if people are causing trouble in court.

From what I saw the handcuffs that the prison people have seem bigger than the normal ones the Gardai have. I don't know what the difference is but know that the normal ones can be sore enough if they put them on tight which happened to me.

seamus

Mark25 wrote: »

From what I saw the handcuffs that the prison people have seem bigger than the normal ones the Gardai have. I don't know what the difference is but know that the normal ones can be sore enough if they put them on tight which happened to me.

You might have it there in one. The cuffs used by the Gardai would be short-term things, while the person is being arrested. The cuffs are removed when they're brought to the station. The cuffs used by the prison service would be worn for a little longer - while being transported, while waiting to be called and so forth, so are presumably a little more comfortable than standard Garda issue.

Hooch

Mark25 wrote: »

From what I saw the handcuffs that the prison people have seem bigger than the normal ones the Gardai have. I don't know what the difference is but know that the normal ones can be sore enough if they put them on tight which happened to me.

No comfort factor. The prison service use rigid handcuffs.



AGS use chain and semi rigid cuffs





AGS dont use rigid cuffs as they are harder than semi rigid or chain cuffs to carry on your belt.

The cuffs put on you were more than likely new.....they loosen out after a while:D

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

Yes, but if those guys won't behave in court, then I'm not sure what they are hoping for.

If misbehaviour in court is a basis to take away someone's rights, then I'm amazed that any solicitor, barrister, garda, prison officer or clerk have any rights.

maidhc wrote: »

Likewise, if there is a possibility of witnesses being intimidated, they can hardly be surprised if they get shipped off to the Special Criminal Court!

So the mere possibility of witness intimidation is enough to deny rights eh?

Delancey

In the 1970's a married couple were on trial for the Capital Murder of a Garda - they kept shouting abuse and interrupting proceedings to the extent the Judge ordered them to be held in the cells for the rest of the trial.
Judges can pretty much do as they wish although they need to realise how their actions can be interpreted by the Court of Appeal.

Mark25

nice guy always wrote: »

No comfort factor. The prison service use rigid handcuffs.



AGS use chain and semi rigid cuffs





AGS dont use rigid cuffs as they are harder than semi rigid or chain cuffs to carry on your belt.

The cuffs put on you were more than likely new.....they loosen out after a while:D

You learn something new every day! Seriously it was the last type that were put on me - I think they were the same when I was arrested originally.

Do you pretty much handcuff everybody if they are arrested or being transported somewhere. I expected it when I was arrested first (was drunk) but not really when being moved from the Garda station to the Bridewell - I was had a decent chat with the Garda and did everything I was told.

I have another stupid question for you - is there any rule about how Gardai have their cuffs? I've noticed sometimes you can see them on the Garda's belt and others seem to have them in a pouch or on their belt when you can't see them at all.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If misbehaviour in court is a basis to take away someone's rights, then I'm amazed that any solicitor, barrister, garda, prison officer or clerk have any rights.




So the mere possibility of witness intimidation is enough to deny rights eh?

Never seen a Garda or solicitor give the judge two fingers but if you have I'd love to hear about it.

Victor

nice guy always wrote: »

No comfort factor. The prison service use rigid handcuffs.

I saw a guy, an I'm sure there was 20-30cm between the individual cuffs. Not sure if there was a chain or a bar. Perhaps somethings like this http://arkjournal.com/uploaded_images/Shackles-750027.jpg He was serving a sentence already though.

Our man in Havana

They look like leg shackles.

_JOE_

k_mac wrote: »

Never seen a Garda or solicitor give the judge two fingers but if you have I'd love to hear about it.

That's not what he said...

And misbehaviour, which he did say, frequently occurs...

maidhc

_JOE_ wrote: »

That's not what he said...

And misbehaviour, which he did say, frequently occurs...

This debate is going nowhere if we are comparing McCarthy Dundon & Co to officers of the court.

The abovementioned idiots and their ilk were they cause of the Criminal Justice Amendment Act in the first place, and while it may be an obnoxious piece of legislation, it is better than the alternative.

cushtac

Mark25 wrote: »

Do you pretty much handcuff everybody if they are arrested or being transported somewhere. I expected it when I was arrested first (was drunk) but not really when being moved from the Garda station to the Bridewell - I was had a decent chat with the Garda and did everything I was told.

All prisoners should be cuffed when being moved, regardless of their attitude. I've seen more than one prisoner go from quiet compliance to violent disorder at the drop of a hat.

Mark25 wrote: »

I have another stupid question for you - is there any rule about how Gardai have their cuffs? I've noticed sometimes you can see them on the Garda's belt and others seem to have them in a pouch or on their belt when you can't see them at all.

What difference does it make??

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

The abovementioned idiots and their ilk were they cause of the Criminal Justice Amendment Act in the first place, and while it may be an obnoxious piece of legislation, it is better than the alternative.

That's a fairly chilling attitude. So the government decides who is going to be convicted, and if they cannot get them under the law as it stands they introduce new legislation to put them away on. Where does that end?

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's a fairly chilling attitude. So the government decides who is going to be convicted, and if they cannot get them under the law as it stands they introduce new legislation to put them away on. Where does that end?

I said (and you quoted me) that it is an obnoxious piece of legislation. However the alternative is possibly a threat the fabric of the state with people in various parts of the country being subservient to thugs rather than the criminal justice system.

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

I said (and you quoted me) that it is an obnoxious piece of legislation. However the alternative is possibly a threat the fabric of the state with people in various parts of the country being subservient to thugs rather than the criminal justice system.

Or they could just spend more resources on increased investigations, surveilance and witness protection.

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or they could just spend more resources on increased investigations, surveilance and witness protection.

I agree in the abstract, but I think given where we stand financially as well as given the urgency of the issue last year what they did was the only feasible option IMO.

mike kelly

I think that there is no hope that these guys will get a fair trial.

Yes, they are all scumbags but non-jury trials in criminal cases is a worrying development.

Bosco boy

mike kelly wrote: »

I think that there is no hope that these guys will get a fair trial.

Yes, they are all scumbags but non-jury trials in criminal cases is a worrying development.

if they were'nt intimidating juries and witnesses, they would have a jury, I think its a little disrespectful to the justice system to suggest that the 3 judges sitting in the special criminal court won't give them a fair trial. they can always appeal if they feel they have been wronged and have a case! they are just being denied the opportunity to intimidate a jury!

johnnyskeleton

Bosco boy wrote: »

if they were'nt intimidating juries and witnesses, they would have a jury, I think its a little disrespectful to the justice system to suggest that the 3 judges sitting in the special criminal court won't give them a fair trial. they can always appeal if they feel they have been wronged and have a case! they are just being denied the opportunity to intimidate a jury!

Were they intimidating juries though? I don't think there is any evidence of someone who was unable to have a jury trial because of juror intimidation. In any event, to solve that they can hear the case in or outside of Dublin depending on where the person isn't from.

Witness intimidation is not cured by a non jury trial.

I don't think it is disrespectful to say that, in fact I think it is a gross disrespect to our system of democracy and one of the fundamental rights of a fair trial in our country to get rid of jury trials.

McCrack

Non-juries are rare and the DPP doesnt consent to them lightly. You can be sure it was the correct thing to do in this instance. These individuals have and will use any means to "get at" juriors. Dogs on the street know what these individuals are capable of and ordinary people are reluctant to serve on such trials involving such people.

mike kelly

McCrack wrote: »

Non-juries are rare and the DPP doesnt consent to them lightly. You can be sure it was the correct thing to do in this instance. These individuals have and will use any means to "get at" juriors. Dogs on the street know what these individuals are capable of and ordinary people are reluctant to serve on such trials involving such people.

I think it is very naive to suggest that it is easier to intimidate a juror than to intimidate a judge. Have you studied the Brian Fitzgerald murder trial from a few years back where the judge directed that John and Dessie be found innocent? Highly suspicious, surely

mike kelly

Bosco boy wrote: »

if they were'nt intimidating juries and witnesses, they would have a jury, I think its a little disrespectful to the justice system to suggest that the 3 judges sitting in the special criminal court won't give them a fair trial. they can always appeal if they feel they have been wronged and have a case! they are just being denied the opportunity to intimidate a jury!

Gardai wearing balaclavas is the next step

johnnyskeleton

McCrack wrote: »

Non-juries are rare and the DPP doesnt consent to them lightly.

Just like we were told, prior to the passing of the Sex Offences Act, 2006, that there doesn't need to be a romeo and juliet clause because the DPP would never prosecute in circumstances where the two children were of similar age, yet just over a year later he prosecuted a 15 year old boy for having sexual intercourse with a 14 year old girl. I'm sure that's not the only case either.

McCrack wrote: »

You can be sure it was the correct thing to do in this instance.

Why? I know nothing about the case other than is what is in the papers, and I don't believe in trial by media.

McCrack wrote: »

These individuals have and will use any means to "get at" juriors.

These people? If you mean people from Limerick then you are racist (or countyist) and if you mean criminals then you have just expressed contempt for the presumption of innocence.

But do you have any proof that the individuals in question have and will use any means to "get at" jurors?

McCrack wrote: »

Dogs on the street know what these individuals are capable of and ordinary people are reluctant to serve on such trials involving such people.

Ordinary people are reluctant to sit on any jury. But yet they do. Are there instances of cases where someone could not get a jury trial because jurors were afraid to sit on the case? If so, then a much fairer system would be to return a person to a normal court, and if a jury cannot be obtained in, say, 3 tries, the Judge can certify that it is one for the SCC and can send it across.

There is nothing in these arguments other than supposition. But it would be much more honest if you were to give the real reasons for these trials - that 3 judges are much more likely to convict than 12 ordinary citizens, honest and true, all other things being equal.

Finally, have you thought about this: surely it is much harder to intimidate 12 people who are unknown to you until the day of the trial (or indeed who could never be known to you with special anonymity rules) than it is to intimidate 3 judges who you can find out will be sitting in advance?

I have no problem with a non jury trial in any case in which it can be proven that a jury trial is not possible due to intimidation. But it is yet another way in which the Oireachtas erodes the right to a jury trial.

McCrack

mike kelly wrote: »

I think it is very naive to suggest that it is easier to intimidate a juror than to intimidate a judge. Have you studied the Brian Fitzgerald murder trial from a few years back where the judge directed that John and Dessie be found innocent? Highly suspicious, surely

I am aware of that case as it was high profile. I'm not privy to the legal argument advanced by the respective Counsels and the Judges decision based on that simply because I wasnt there. If you can enlighten me to the legal issues surrounding the direction I could maybe comment.

Peter Charlton (the Judge) has been working in the criminal justice system for a very very long time and has prosecuted worse people then these guys.

Judge ordered aquittals do happen but there must be sound legal basis for it, otherwise the DPP would kick up.

Ash.J.Williams

psni wrote: »

Just reading this story in The Indo and I notice that they were all handcuffed in court.

This could be ignorance of Irish law on my part, but is this shaky legal ground? Is the accused person not supposed to be presented to the judge as innocent until he decides they are guilty? Is it enough to say that they weren't cooperating with prison officers yesterday, so we're handcuffing them in court today?

I'm thinking Human Rights breaches will be alleged for this.

Comments?

A friend of mine once accidently missed a court date for a drink driving offence, a bench warrant was issued and he was brought to court in cuffs.

mike kelly

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

A friend of mine once accidently missed a court date for a drink driving offence, a bench warrant was issued and he was brought to court in cuffs.

your friend is obviously a danger to society and deserves the death penalty

mike kelly

McCrack wrote: »

I am aware of that case as it was high profile. I'm not privy to the legal argument advanced by the respective Counsels and the Judges decision based on that simply because I wasnt there. If you can enlighten me to the legal issues surrounding the direction I could maybe comment.

Peter Charlton (the Judge) has been working in the criminal justice system for a very very long time and has prosecuted worse people then these guys.

Judge ordered aquittals do happen but there must be sound legal basis for it, otherwise the DPP would kick up.

here is why , you think that is sufficent reason to order an acquittal?

testicle

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All humans have rights, including the right to a fair trial. Take that away from one person and you will eventually take it away from everyone.

They are not human.

mike kelly

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

These people? If you mean people from Limerick then you are racist (or countyist)

"these people" claim to belong to a certain ethnic group, take a guess which one.

McCrack

I think you're living in the clouds Johnny.

Sometimes academic lawyers need to come away from the textbook understanding of issues and develop an appreciation for reality.

mike kelly

McCrack wrote: »

I think you're living in the clouds Johnny.

Sometimes academic lawyers need to come away from the textbook understanding of issues and develop an appreciation for reality.

the problem here is political not legal. The state has lost control over much of Limerick but won't admit it.

McCrack

mike kelly wrote: »

here is why , you think that is sufficent reason to order an acquittal?

Thats an extract from a newspaper. I would need to see the transcript of the Trial to make any sort of informed opinion.

On the face of it I can't see that the Judge erred.

johnnyskeleton

McCrack wrote: »

I think you're living in the clouds Johnny.

Sometimes academic lawyers need to come away from the textbook understanding of issues and develop an appreciation for reality.

Can you reply to what I posted or are you just going to make ad hominem (and possibly unsubstantiated) attacks on me?

1) are we right to put our faith in the DPP when the last time the Government passed a dodgy law on the basis that the DPP wouldn't use it badly, he failed?

2) you seem sure of this case from what you read in the papers, but refuse to comment on the other case without knowing exactly what was said in that trial? Can you explain this apparent inconsistency in your views?

3) Again, do you have any proof of jury intimidation in Ireland?

4) Can you point to an instance where a jury trial could not be run because of jury intimidation?

4a) What is wrong with a less draconian way of assisting juries, such as anonymity, or only certifying for a non jury trial after it has been proven that there is no realistic possibility of a jury trial due to intimidation?

4b) can you please explain why you think three known judges are less likely to be intimidated than 12 unknown citizens?