How many prisoners in Irish jails are innocent?

Nolanger

How many prisoners in Irish jails are there because they were wrongly convicted? How many were set up? Does everyone in an Irish jail deserve to be there? Is there an organisation for people who proclaim their innocence? Do some Irish solicitors deal with prisoners who are in jail and are trying to prove their innocence? Has the Government ever paid compensation to someone who was jailed, discovered to be innocent, and then released? Or have I watched too many movies?

Tom Young

Likely that there are a few alright. See this now famous ruling: Shortt -v- The Commissioner of an Garda Síochána & ors

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/c22afa500baad37a802572a50041bd90?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,Frank,Donegal

James Jones

What about this one HERE?

Spacedog

The Rossport 5 come to mind as well as Maura Harrington. All jailed despite countless examples video evedence of horrific brutality by the garda.

These being politically motivated and corruption related. I don't think I know af any examples of ordinary people being convicted and then proving their innocence. Would not suprise me though in the least.

Dylan123

Nobody knows how man people in Irish jails are innocent apart from those that are innocent!

Uk example
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six
USA example
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

Sure you can dig out loads of Irish info online
This case is disputing the DNA evidence on the knife.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12258935

Tom Young

James Jones wrote: »

What about this one HERE?

Yes that judgment is on the Courts website also.

Zambia

They are all innocent , lawyer screwed em....

Irish Fire

Zambia wrote: »

They are all innocent , lawyer screwed em....

Best film ever made........

detective

Spacedog wrote: »

The Rossport 5 come to mind as well as Maura Harrington. All jailed despite countless examples video evedence of horrific brutality by the garda.

These being politically motivated and corruption related. I don't think I know af any examples of ordinary people being convicted and then proving their innocence. Would not suprise me though in the least.

They weren't jailed for any crime they were jailed for contempt of a civil court which has nothing to do with Garda brutality as the Gardai play no role in civil courts.

BTW just because a video shows a Garda striking someone with a baton doesn't mean it's Garda brutality. The fact is a Garda can use force to ensure that a civil order of the court is carried out.

HarryPotter41

Spacedog wrote: »

The Rossport 5 come to mind as well as Maura Harrington. All jailed despite countless examples video evedence of horrific brutality by the garda.

These being politically motivated and corruption related. I don't think I know af any examples of ordinary people being convicted and then proving their innocence. Would not suprise me though in the least.

She was jailed for driving dangerously when following a van at speed and close up, which she admitted. How does her doing that relate to police brutality?? God, the way people trot out her so called innocence.

mikemac

Zambia wrote: »

They are all innocent , lawyer screwed em....

I saw the thread title and came here to post that

Beaten to it

coylemj

Spacedog wrote: »

The Rossport 5 come to mind as well as Maura Harrington. All jailed despite countless examples video evedence of horrific brutality by the garda.

She is nothing but an attention-seeking trouble maker. She thinks that multinational companies should spend billions of pounds exploring for oil and gas and then when they find it, just hand it over to the Govt. and walk away.

Holybejaysus

coylemj wrote: »

She is nothing but an attention-seeking trouble maker. She thinks that multinational companies should spend billions of pounds exploring for oil and gas and then when they find it, just hand it over to the Govt. and walk away.

+1. The short clip of 'The Pipe' on the Late Late Show confirmed all my suspicions of Maura Harrington. She is a public relations disaster for Shell To Sea, and has probably done more than any other individual to discredit them, IMO. And that's up against some fairly stiff competition.

Tom Young

That's your own opinion. Let's not get into anything here requiring Mods to act. Thanks.

PCPhoto

going back on topic:

There are very few cases of innocent people in the Irish prison system - there are not too many who protest their innocence (after a jury verdict of guilty)....

more importantly....How many guilty people are walking free from our courts?

Bosco boy

In fairness no one can possibly know the answer to that question, it's pure speculation, cases are very rare and everyone in court is afforded legal representation wheather they take it up or not. It's difficult enough to convict guilty people in Irish court let alone innocent people.

Reloc8

Nolanger wrote: »

How many prisoners in Irish jails are there because they were wrongly convicted? How many were set up? Does everyone in an Irish jail deserve to be there? Is there an organisation for people who proclaim their innocence? Do some Irish solicitors deal with prisoners who are in jail and are trying to prove their innocence? Has the Government ever paid compensation to someone who was jailed, discovered to be innocent, and then released? Or have I watched too many movies?

In law none - all have been convicted following process.

In fact some - people make mistakes, including judges and juries.

Reloc8

Nolanger wrote: »

How many prisoners in Irish jails are there because they were wrongly convicted? How many were set up? Does everyone in an Irish jail deserve to be there? Is there an organisation for people who proclaim their innocence? Do some Irish solicitors deal with prisoners who are in jail and are trying to prove their innocence? Has the Government ever paid compensation to someone who was jailed, discovered to be innocent, and then released? Or have I watched too many movies?

In law none - all have been convicted following process.

In fact some - people make mistakes, including judges and juries.

Yes solicitors deal with these cases. Yes compensation has been paid.

Bosco boy

Reloc8 wrote: »

In law none - all have been convicted following process.

In fact some - people make mistakes, including judges and juries.

Yes solicitors deal with these cases. Yes compensation has been paid.

Defence counsel can make mistakes too!

Reloc8

Bosco boy wrote: »

Defence counsel can make mistakes too!

Hmmm - yep - but a responsible and ethical prosecutor and prosecuting authority would certainly not let a mistake which constituted a miscarriage of justice stand before the court of trial.

FreudianSlippers

Don't really know what the status on this is at the moment, but interesting enough anyway that they've started on here.

http://www.innocenceproject.ie/

Bosco boy

Reloc8 wrote: »

Hmmm - yep - but a responsible and ethical prosecutor and prosecuting authority would certainly not let a mistake which constituted a miscarriage of justice stand before the court of trial.[/QUOTE

I'm talking about poor representation and lack of research into the case and facts resulting in a poor defence, the prosecution aint going to defend your case for you.

Reloc8

But sure, isn't the real question why these innocent people to whom you refer were charged in the first place ?

Bosco boy

Reloc8 wrote: »

But sure, isn't the real question why these innocent people to whom you refer were charged in the first place ?

There can be many reasons, a malicious complaint, poor investigation, poor defence, bad judge, excellent prosecution, it's rare all of these come together and that's why cases are so rare

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

Hmmm - yep - but a responsible and ethical prosecutor and prosecuting authority would certainly not let a mistake which constituted a miscarriage of justice stand before the court of trial.

Bosco boy wrote: »

I'm talking about poor representation and lack of research into the case and facts resulting in a poor defence, the prosecution aint going to defend your case for you.

The odds are stacked against an innocent person. Guilty people can be hard hard to convict because they are guilty and know what is going on and protect themselves. Innocent persons are usually unwittingly involved in some way in what tend to be coincidental circumstances and are innocent have no idea what is happening. A detectives hunch or a poor eye witness mis-identification is all it takes for them to get railroaded.

What can happen and does happen is the following: A common technique by prosecution is to convict or show proof of guilt of the Defendant to a lesser crime that is directly related to the main case against the defendant. Thus his or her fate is sealed and he/she will not win against a jury unless they have extremely competent defence which is so very rare.

Then you can really abuse this technique. For instance in the bad old days the Detective Garda and crime lab can collect/fabricate evidence against you for another crime that directly relates to the crime they are prosecuting you for. This evidence is beyond the laymans understanding (including barristers and solictors) who really have no clue about forensic science.

(I can show/post by example of case law such evidence used by the Garda crime lab and I would seriously doubt anyone here would have the requisite knowledge how to properly understand it or defend against it)

The Garda tech lab will use this junk science evidence in the book of evidence to prove beyond a doubt that the defendant is guilty of a directly related crime. They will not charge the defendant with the actual crime they have proven but another lesser crime. This looks extremely convincing on paper but is nothing more than manipulated and misleading results.

Then using the same book of evidence the DPP accuse of the defendant of a much more serious crime that may never have actually been committed by anyone. Since the book of evidence confirms the defendants guilt the level of proof required is very low bar and perhaps some creative prose in the Garda notebook which will be used later to type up in a statement. ( A common miscarrige of justice in most irish cases).

Then it all goes to the district court and usually only a solicitor turns up and of course there is no evidence tendered only the book of evidence which the Judge has glanced through.

It is here where the defendant is becomes a victim of a miscarriage of justice by the district court in the space of ten seconds and a bang of the hammer of the lesser crime that he/she is merely implicated of in the book of evidence and is sent on to the circuit court. The Defendant is restrained from witnesses and property and other such measures which make his/her investigation improbable. Then he has to rely on his solicitor to work the case. This of course never happens and the defendant is advised to plead guilty to avoid a lenghty sentence etc

There also might be and usually is a witness that is lying which is usually where good defence solicitor is required.

Reloc8

None of that is accurate in terms of the description of the process involved or the manner in which evidence is presented.

The last line makes sense.

There I said it.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

None of that is accurate in terms of the description of the process involved or the manner in which evidence is presented.

The last line makes sense.

There I said it.

It's accurate for the old days. May not be the same process today. Although bear in mind that I am recounting real cases so your opinion as to accuracy is very ambiguous. I think your just being incredulous.

Process I described:

• DPP decide to prosecute
  
• Book of evidence is presented to defendants solicitor
  
• A District court hearing is held mainly to make a Decision as to gravity of the crime and sentence required and if it is suitable for the district court and this decision is made by the District court judge. (This is where the evidence is accepted at face value and the defendant is now facing a much higher sentences if convicted )
  
• If District court Judge decides a more serious sentence is warranted; then the case is sent to the circuit court
  
• Meanwhile the defendant will be ordered about witnesses and may be kept from certain areas and or even be jailed.

Their case in the hands of a solicitor. It's a miscarriage of justice from this point on as most solicitors do not understand the forensic lingo. In fact there is not one legal person on this forum capable of understanding the real complexity of forensics in even a burgarly. If there is I will ban myself for a month.

Here is a case from my YOU TUBE channel where the majority if not all of the entire black population in one small town were incarcerated by a zealous and corrupt white investigator. You can't understand a miscarriage of justice if your incredulous to events that have happened because they don't fit what you expect happens. They are usually are outside the normal procedures in some way.


http://www.youtube.com/user/CentreDivide#p/u/23/0Y-WdVMqEZA

Bosco boy

I thought we were talking about ireland not Texas, your talking about different laws and court procedures and police force, if you want to trawl the world for injustice you'll find plenty, if there is one section I have great confidence in It is the forensic lab at Garda hq, they have and excellent record and are highly professional.

Zambia

There is also a process to get the file to the DPP internally within the Gardai.

It would also really depend on the charge.

Kosseegan

pirelli wrote: »

Process I described:

• DPP decide to prosecute
  
• Book of evidence is presented to defendants solicitor
  
• A District court hearing is held mainly to make a Decision as to gravity of the crime and sentence required and if it is suitable for the district court and this decision is made by the District court judge. (This is where the evidence is accepted at face value and the defendant is now facing a much higher sentences if convicted )
  
• If District court Judge decides a more serious sentence is warranted; then the case is sent to the circuit court
  
• Meanwhile the defendant will be ordered about witnesses and may be kept from certain areas and or even be jailed.

That is not accurate. DPP decides whether or not the case should be tried summarily or on indictment. If summary, no book of evidence is prepared. the judge decides whether to accept jurisdiction or not. If not the case is adjourned for service of book of evidence. If the judge accepts jurisdiction the accused is put to his election. If he opts for summary the Judge tries the case in the District Court. There may be an order for disclosure of documents depending on the case.

Reloc8

Kosseegan wrote: »

[/LIST]That is not accurate. DPP decides whether or not the case should be tried summarily or on indictment. If summary, no book of evidence is prepared. the judge decides whether to accept jurisdiction or not. If not the case is adjourned for service of book of evidence. If the judge accepts jurisdiction the accused is put to his election. If he opts for summary the Judge tries the case in the District Court. There may be an order for disclosure of documents depending on the case.

Nope.

In respect of indictable charges the DPP indicates whether he consents to summary disposal or directs trial on indictment. If the DPP consents to summary disposal the District Court Judge may refuse jurisdiction on the basis that the facts alleged do not disclose a minor offence fit to be tried summarily. In other words the DPP cannot direct summary trial.

In respect of many indictable offences but not all the accused has an election as to whether he or she agrees to summary trial, in the event that the DPP does. Again the DPP cannot direct summary trial, the accused in those cases has an option.

Even if the accused and DPP agree to summary trial the District Court Judge may still refuse jurisdiction and send the matter for trial before Judge and Jury.

In the event of the DPP directing trial on indictment, or the Judge refusing jurisdiction, or the accused opting for trial on indictment (applicable to may indictable offences) a book of evidence is served and the matter sent to the appropriate court for trial.

What Pirelli is referring to is an older procedure whereby if the matter was to be dealt with on indictment (i.e. any of the circumstances in the above paragraph pertained) the District Court Judge reviewed the Book of Evidence when served so as to ascertain whether in fact there is sufficient evidence against the accused so as to warrant a trial. He or she heard submissions from the prosecution and defence on this issue and if there was not sufficient evidence the charges were struck out. If there was, the accused was sent forward for trial. There was no determination as to whether the facts alleged were in fact true or proven and no determination of guilt or innocent. It was a mechanism to afford the accused the right to have charges based on insufficient evidence struck out.

The modern procedure has the District Judge simply sent forward the accused for trial and any submissions made to the effect that no offence is disclosed on the Book of Evidence are made to a Circuit Court Judge, pursuant to Section 4E of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967. The District Court Judge now does not review the Book of Evidence but simply considers an outline of the facts alleged against the accused so as to determine whether if they were proven against him or her the District Court could adequately sentence the convicted person. That is presuming the DPP consents to summary trial and the accused does not elect for trial on indictment.

The reference Pirelli makes to someone being jailed at the point where a District Judge considers whether the case is fit for the District Court following service of the Book of Evidence is presumably a reference to bail issues and yes anyone in certain circumstances can be remanded in custody pending determination of guilt or innocence by way of being refused bail or being unable to meet the bail set.

Nolanger

Bosco boy wrote: »

In fairness no one can possibly know the answer to that question, it's pure speculation, cases are very rare and everyone in court is afforded legal representation wheather they take it up or not. It's difficult enough to convict guilty people in Irish court let alone innocent people.

Well what about Nora Wall?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_Wall

murrayp4

And Michael Hannon
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0427/hannonm.html

pirelli

Bosco boy wrote: »

I thought we were talking about ireland not Texas, your talking about different laws and court procedures and police force, if you want to trawl the world for injustice you'll find plenty, if there is one section I have great confidence in It is the forensic lab at Garda hq, they have and excellent record and are highly professional.

Well, America is a good source of information for Miscarriages of justice. RTE are not reliable in documenting miscarriages of justice on our own soil. If there was one key feauture in irish miscarriages of justice it is the dishonesty of the Gardai in taking statements. This is a key problem. Hopefully with new technology ( apart from mentally retarded persons) this can be improved upoun.

The Garda HQ:

Whilst there are many professionals that provide an excellent service at the Garda HQ, There are also practices that have been used in the past which were below the standard expected in a court. One such practice was finding person guilty when the results were indicative of showing the person was actually innocent.

If you like i will post the results of such a scientific report from the Garda HQ that claim a person is guilty and i can guarantee that no legal mind here will be able to decipher that in real scientific terms the person is innocent to a fair degree from these reuslts and not actually guilty.

Based on that, i do not think; anyone here is qualified (such as yourself boscoboy) to say that the Garda HQ is highly professional. I can; because i have the file in my hand, and i have the research reports and qualifications to say that they can be anything but professional.

Also the garda technical bureau was in the past by certain individuals behaviour very dishonest/misleading in it's statements.

James Jones

pirelli wrote: »

If you like i will post the results of such a scientific report from the Garda HQ that claim a person is guilty and i can guarantee that no legal mind here will be able to decipher that in real scientific terms the person is innocent to a fair degree from these reuslts and not actually guilty.

Can't wait to see this!!!!

pirelli

James Jones wrote: »

Can't wait to see this!!!!

Some of the regular posters here have to challenge me on it. I will not post it as an exercise alone. I would like to see a few regular poster take on the challenge.

It goes to show how few legal minds understand these cases.

Bosco boy

Pirelli, Sh1t or get off the pot!

Bosco boy

murrayp4 wrote: »

And Michael Hannon
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0427/hannonm.html

I agree, but it was a malicious complaint not initiated by gardai, could they have investigated better, maybe, I don't know!

pwd

pirelli wrote: »

If there was one key feauture in irish miscarriages of justice it is the dishonesty of the Gardai in taking statements. This is a key problem. Hopefully with new technology ( apart from mentally retarded persons) this can be improved upoun.

By new technology, do you mean recordings of the statements being taken? Because guards dont record 'voluntary' statements, so it would be limited in its effect: They bully witnesses and accused people into giving 'voluntary' statements.

It's also shocking the percentage of cases in Ireland and Britain that are heard without a jury. I think you are only guaranteed a jury if you are on a charge which carries a possible sentence of over 5 years! The corruption is not only with the guards, but also with judges in the district courts.

Bosco boy

I formally challenge thee!

pirelli

James Jones wrote: »

Can't wait to see this!!!!

Bosco boy wrote: »

Pirelli, Sh1t or get off the pot!

Why Bosco,

Do people sh1t in your box at rte... Sorry, i don't mean to upset your view of the Garda HQ. I assume your challenging me but i would like at least one regular law poster to participate.


The first case will be the refractive index of glass found on a suspect. We will be matching it to the control glass at the point of entry.You will have to determine if the conclusion of guilt is correct and why it is or isn't.

Anyone want to take the challenge. Then i will post the report and it will be anonymous.

Bosco boy

I've my scenes of crime overalls on, this could be an all night job!

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

If you like i will post the results of such a scientific report from the Garda HQ that claim a person is guilty and i can guarantee that no legal mind here will be able to decipher that in real scientific terms the person is innocent to a fair degree from these reuslts and not actually guilty.

Putting the exact document on the internet might cause trouble, but why don't you give specifics of the type of report it is and the type of findings, and then if no one can guess the legal infirmity that you are talking about then you can amaze us all.

But in any event, no scientific report or any other piece of evidence will "claim a person is guilty" nor can it be used to "decipher that in real scientific terms the person is innocent". Besides from the fact that "innocent to a fair degree" is a somewhat unusual phrase, there is no such scientific term as innocent. It is a legal term.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

The first case will be the refractive index of glass found on a suspect. We will be matching it to the control glass at the point of entry.You will have to determine if the conclusion of guilt is correct and why it is or isn't.

Anyone want to take the challenge. Then i will post the report and it will be anonymous.

Superficially it looks like it points to guilt, but when you look at it closely the opposite is true and it points to innocence.

Is that the right answer? Do I get a prize?

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Putting the exact document on the internet might cause trouble, but why don't you give specifics of the type of report it is and the type of findings, and then if no one can guess the legal infirmity that you are talking about then you can amaze us all.

But in any event, no scientific report or any other piece of evidence will "claim a person is guilty" nor can it be used to "decipher that in real scientific terms the person is innocent". Besides from the fact that "innocent to a fair degree" is a somewhat unusual phrase, there is no such scientific term as innocent. It is a legal term.

Ok, So your DNA in a particular circumstance would not in the eyes of the Jury be proof of guilt. Of course theoretically it isn't but if you ever read the criminal appeals findings form the courts.ie and it is a crime of moral tupitude ( not drugs however) and if there is ever some remaining suspicion of the defendants guilt or dishonesty then they wont get off on legal technicalities. where drug offender would. Crimes of moral turpitude are treated differently than drug offences and other black market offences.

In order to win such a case you have to remove every single peice of suspicion against the person. So to say a finding from a crime lab that states at the highest level of confidence i.e STRONGEST that such a person commited such an offence due to the findings while technically is not proof of guilt it is in the right circumstances such as in this one as close to proof of guilt the jury require.

Also How would you explain Dallas DNA or the innocent Project Where they use DNA and DNA alone to prove the innocence of convicted felons. Their whole organisation was set to test convicted felons DNA to see if they were guilty mostly in rape cases.

While i do not think your one of the types that send innocent men back to prison based on the legal assumption that despite the innocent project proving the DNA in the rape kit is not their DNA this clinical finding alone is not legal proof of guilt or innocence because their might remain other suspicious circumstances but if it is unequivicol proof of innocence due to sloppy police work then they are innocent but if there remains suspicion then they might not go free but that suspicon might be also because of sloppy police work....hence it comes down to suspicion and common sense. If the person is unequivocally innocent but there is a witness or anything suspicious and their DNA is on the rape kit then they are going to Jail. However if it is not on the rape kit and the only other evidence is weak then he walks guaranteed.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

I will start a new thread with the specifics of the Report.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Superficially it looks like it points to guilt, but when you look at it closely the opposite is true and it points to innocence.

Is that the right answer? Do I get a prize?

Belive it or not the closer you look at it the more it looks like guilt. It takes a whole leap of imagination and the right journals to discover what it really means.

Report posted.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

Belive it or not the closer you look at it the more it looks like guilt. It takes a whole leap of imagination and the right journals to discover what it really means.

Report posted.

Well then, just tell the jury to look the other way when the expert is giving his or her evidence. Then don't bring it up again. Problem solved.

Or, just get an independent forensic scientist to examine it.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well then, just tell the jury to look the other way when the expert is giving his or her evidence. Then don't bring it up again. Problem solved.

Or, just get an independent forensic scientist to examine it.

They are based in the UK and cost thousands. The Garda are a major client of the forensic science services and can afford them the average lay person can not and it is usually a small part of much more evidence. We do not have anyone with this expertise in ireland. You would have to literally destory the credibiltiy of the Garda state crime lab. While proving the error in the report is elementary in science such a heroic figure is very hard to find.