ian bailey extradition

neris

why do the french want ian bailey to go there for the murder in west cork? he was cleared by the courts here of doing but the french seem to think hes guilty or just want to put him on trial there. as the crime didnt happen there what basis do they think they have for getting their hands on him? is it not overstepping the mark on national juristicion and also undermining our legal system if the french were to put him on trial? a guy was acquited in australia for the murder of an irish guy this week but i dont our legal system is chasing the aussies to send him over here.

Ken.

French law allows for the trial of a person accused of murdering a French citizen anywhere in the world.

Milk & Honey

neris wrote: »

why do the french want ian bailey to go there for the murder in west cork? he was cleared by the courts here of doing but the french seem to think hes guilty or just want to put him on trial there.

He was not cleared by the courts here. He was never charged.

berrypendel

Milk & Honey wrote: »

He was not cleared by the courts here. He was never charged.

The garda tried to stitch him up and threatened the shop owner who gave evidence against him under pressure and then with drew it

"The McAndrew review was set up in 2005 after Mr Bailey’s lawyer, Frank Buttimer, wrote to then minister for justice Michael McDowell saying that another witness, Marie Farrell, had alleged that she had been coerced by gardaí into falsely incriminating Mr Bailey." [From the link]

pirelli

neris wrote: »

why do the french want ian bailey to go there for the murder in west cork? he was cleared by the courts here of doing but the french seem to think hes guilty or just want to put him on trial there. as the crime didnt happen there what basis do they think they have for getting their hands on him? is it not overstepping the mark on national juristicion and also undermining our legal system if the french were to put him on trial? a guy was acquited in australia for the murder of an irish guy this week but i dont our legal system is chasing the aussies to send him over here.

The Garda fabricated a statement from a Miss/Mr's Farrell. They Garda have damaged this case terribly.

What law would the Garda have broken in doing this?
Would they be guilty of making a false statement under the 76 criminal law act or would they be guilty of more serious crimes?

The only evidence they might have apart from him being a likely suspect is that he burned clothes in his rear garden. Whether that is even true i do not know. There are questions to be answered by all persons. The gardai involved should be reprimanded and if guilty prosecuted and the investigation should have continued and been resolved.

pirelli

berrypendel wrote: »

The garda tried to stitch him up and threatened the shop owner who gave evidence against him under pressure and then with drew it

The McAndrew review was set up in 2005 after Mr Bailey’s lawyer, Frank Buttimer, wrote to then minister for justice Michael McDowell saying that another witness, Marie Farrell, had alleged that she had been coerced by gardaí into falsely incriminating Mr Bailey.

Thank's I posted before I saw this!

berrypendel

pirelli wrote: »

Thank's I posted before I saw this!

me too just before or after you;)

BornToKill

pirelli wrote: »

The gardai involved should be reprimanded and if guilty prosecuted and the investigation should have continued and been resolved.

Reprimanded first and then their guilt evaluated? Is that even constitutional?

pirelli

BornToKill wrote: »

Reprimanded first and then their guilt evaluated? Is that even constitutional?

I am not sure but here is a case book example:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1108/1224307207563.html

Usually there is an internal investigation first and if there is criminal elements then that is another matter. Such as in the Gardai that were prosecuted after an investigation by the Garda Ombudsman.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1108/1224307207563.html

TWO FORMER gardaí have been jailed and a garda sergeant given a suspended jail sentence following an incident in which a civilian was assaulted by officers during an arrest in Waterford last year.

The prosecution of the three, along with that of a fourth officer who was acquitted of assault, followed an investigation by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

The excerpt shows that the prosecution followed the internal investigation! What is unconstitutional or have I worded something incorrectly.

MagicSean

pirelli wrote: »

I am not sure but here is a case book example:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1108/1224307207563.html

Usually there is an internal investigation first and if there is criminal elements then that is another matter. Such as in the Gardai that were prosecuted after an investigation by the Garda Ombudsman.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1108/1224307207563.html




The excerpt shows that the prosecution followed the internal investigation! What is unconstitutional or have I worded something incorrectly.

The investigation you quoted was the criminal investigation and not the disciplinary one. In effect it would be like having a civil case before a criminal one. Because the burden of proof in a civil case or disciplinary hearing is much lower than a criminal one the criminal one should be held first to avoid any inferences being drawn from the decisions made using the lower burden of proof.

neris

thanks for the replies. seems like typical french arrogance in a way then to me but not really relevant. Just to further things a bit. Just say he was extradited and the french find him guilty does that not either undermine our judicial system or show us off as runing an incapable law system (which in the current state off the economy Im sure the french would love aswell)

coylemj

If he had been extradited, the French would have locked him up and thrown away the key. I suspect the proceedings instigated by the French were in part because of the influence of the Du Plantier family. If some French farmer's son on a drunken weekend in Dublin had been killed in a fight in Temple Bar, I somehow doubt that the French authorites would have gone to the lengths they did in this case.

The Supreme Court found that the French hadn't even decided whether or not to charge him, clearly they were prepared to mull over this decision while he languished in a French jail which is a total disgrace and smacks of internment.

We think this guy might have killed one of of ours in your country but we're not sure and while we decide whether to prosecute him or not, we'd like to lock him up in one of our jails so can you please shove him in handcuffs on a plane to Paris.

As if that wasn't bad enough, there is no reciprocal arrangement so if the situation was reversed, no French court would extradite a French citizen to Ireland for the murder of an Irish citizen in France. Before anyone points out (if it is the case) that such a prosecution wouldn't stand up in an Irish court, that is not the point.

Solair

Whatever about the facts in the case, the whole concept of the French authorities coming over here to investigate a crime and then attempting to extradite someone without actually even any charges being brought would be deeply undermining of the sovereignty of the state!

The French and Irish legal systems are profoundly different in many respects and not necessarily compatible.

The inquisitorial system used in France allows an independent judge to lead and direct an investigation, basically going off on his/her own steam.

This is quite likely how this case has gotten so weird. The investigating judges are somewhat lone-ranger type characters and are not responsible to a DPP or anything like that.

It's not unlike a private prosecutor.

The majority of cases in France are not brought or investigated by investigating judges, but a minority of, usually high profile cases, are.

There have been calls to have this reformed and done away with, but at present, the system still exists.

What concerned me is that the Irish High Court just rolled over when they were presented with a request to extradite a suspect in a crime that wasn't committed in France!

We would want to be very careful or we could end up with investigators seeking to have suspects prosecuted in whatever country has the lightest burden of proof! Legal systems across Europe vary enormously in terms of procedures and standards.

Tom Young

Concerns me as well, in that the attractiveness of the bench here at the High Court may not attract academically best of breed candidates. I make no slight towards Peart J. who doesn't fall into that category in my view. Really interested to see who the next 3 appointees are, soon to be 4.

pirelli

MagicSean wrote: »

The investigation you quoted was the criminal investigation and not the disciplinary one. In effect it would be like having a civil case before a criminal one. Because the burden of proof in a civil case or disciplinary hearing is much lower than a criminal one the criminal one should be held first to avoid any inferences being drawn from the decisions made using the lower burden of proof.

An investigation by the Garda Omsbudsman is criminal then? Or has the newspaper mis-quoted.

The prosecution of the three, along with that of a fourth officer who was acquitted of assault, followed an investigation by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

ResearchWill

pirelli wrote: »

An investigation by the Garda Omsbudsman is criminal then? Or has the newspaper mis-quoted.

As an investigation can lead to a file being sent to the DPP and considering any accused Garda being investigated by GSO is advised of his right to silence yes such investigations can be criminal investigations.

MagicSean

pirelli wrote: »

An investigation by the Garda Omsbudsman is criminal then? Or has the newspaper mis-quoted.

It depends on the incident and allegation really. In serious cases or where it is in the interest of the public GSOC will take over the criminal investigation from the start.

In Ian Bailey situation I don't think his extradition would have undermined the Irish legal system. He never had any proceedings brought against him. The allegations raised will probably damage the reputation of the Gardaí but the organisation has changed a lot since then so I don't think it will have any domestic ramifications.

In regards to the allegations raised, I have only read what is in the papers but it seems to be mostly mud slinging to see what stuck. If I understand it right the first witness made a statement and then wished to withdraw it but was "coerced". I haven't read about what this coersion was but I wouldn't be surprised if she was simply told. "If you withdraw your statement you will be prosecuted". I'd like to hear more about this aspect of it though. Was it a case where words were put in her mouth or was it a case of someone who felt bad about shopping someone to the Gardaí and then changed their mind. As to the second witness, this sounds like bullsh1t of the highest order. This guy would appear to have been a desperate junkie. I can't even think where the €5000 would come from to pay him let alone why a garda would consider it worth it to pay this for a conviction.

benway

MagicSean wrote: »

In Ian Bailey situation I don't think his extradition would have undermined the Irish legal system. He never had any proceedings brought against him. The allegations raised will probably damage the reputation of the Gardaí but the organisation has changed a lot since then so I don't think it will have any domestic ramifications.

Read, none of the Gardaí involved will be charged or reprimanded.

It's abundantly clear that the investigating officers decided from a very early stage that Bailey was their man, and set about manufacturing their case accordingly. Despite their best efforts, the fact is that there is not one shred of persuasive evidence against this man ... nothing.

When the DPP rightly concluded that there should be no charges against Bailey, they even went so far as to try using a bit of good, old fashioned, nod and a wink gombeenism:

Mr Barnes referred to a meeting he had with State solicitor for west Cork, Malachy Boohig, in Dublin in 1998, in which Mr Boohig said gardaí investigating the murder were anxious to get a direction to charge Mr Bailey with Ms Toscan du Plantier’s killing.

Mr Barnes referred to Mr Boohig briefing him that he had a meeting with three senior officers in Bandon Garda station after Mr Bailey’s second arrest and release in January 1998, when they argued strongly that the DPP should give a direction to charge Mr Bailey.

According to Mr Barnes in his email, Mr Boohig told him that after he left the meeting one of the three senior officers approached him and asked him to ask then minister for justice John O’Donoghue, with whom he had been at UCC, to get the DPP to bring a charge.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1212/1224308954256.html

What I wonder is why they were so keen to fix Bailey with this, and whether any alternative suspects were seriously investigated.

Aside from reputational damage, this case has cost, and will continue to cost the state millions in legal fees, costs, as well as the presumable hefty settlement to the two defamation actions Bailey has outstanding against the Garda Commissioner.

From where I see it, if the Gardaí want to send a credible message that they've cleaned up their act, the senior members responsible for this will be hung out to dry. But, more than likely, they'll close ranks and attempt to limit the damage, as they usually do.

coylemj

MagicSean wrote: »

the organisation has changed a lot since then so I don't think it will have any domestic ramifications.

This is not about the 'organisation', this is about a cockup at local level for which nobody has been made accountable as happens so often in the public service.

The excuse we get fobbed of with every time is that 'lessons have been learned' or 'it's a training issue' or 'the system failed' - never that someone just plain fcuked up.

benway

It is an organisational issue, to the extent that there's a pattern of this mode of operation - there are marked similarities here, in my view, to the McBrearty/Shortt cases in Donegal.

And I'm sure that there are many more cases, where the victims of these types of investigations and prosecutions don't have the money to fight them effectively, or can easily be dismissed as "scumbags".

MagicSean wrote:

In regards to the allegations raised, I have only read what is in the papers but it seems to be mostly mud slinging to see what stuck. If I understand it right the first witness made a statement and then wished to withdraw it but was "coerced". I haven't read about what this coersion was but I wouldn't be surprised if she was simply told. "If you withdraw your statement you will be prosecuted". I'd like to hear more about this aspect of it though. Was it a case where words were put in her mouth or was it a case of someone who felt bad about shopping someone to the Gardaí and then changed their mind. As to the second witness, this sounds like bullsh1t of the highest order. This guy would appear to have been a desperate junkie. I can't even think where the €5000 would come from to pay him let alone why a garda would consider it worth it to pay this for a conviction.

Confused by this, you're surely not trying to claim that unfounded or exaggerated allegations were thrown at the Gardaí in this case? By the DPP?

MagicSean

coylemj wrote: »

This is not about the 'organisation', this is about a cockup at local level for which nobody has been made accountable as happens so often in the public service.

The excuse we get fobbed of with every time is that 'lessons have been learned' or 'it's a training issue' or 'the system failed' - never that someone just plain fcuked up.

So far I have only heard three allegations in relation to the Garda investigation. One from a drug user who appeared to be desperate for money and/or attention. Another claim of coercian without any details at all and a claim that senior Gardaí tried too hard to get the dpp to bring a charge. This may be sufficient for you to dam them all but I would certainly need to hear more before I'd say that somebody ****ed up.

benway wrote: »

It is an organisational issue, to the extent that there's a pattern of this mode of operation - there are marked similarities here, in my view, to the McBrearty/Shortt cases in Donegal.

And I'm sure that there are many more cases, where the victims of these types of prosecutions don't have the money to fight them effectively, or can easily be dismissed as "scumbags".

Maybe in the past. But GSOC has made that issue redundant. In fact, the most recent high profile GSOC cases have been as a result of complaints made by people with criminal records and little money.

benway wrote: »

Confused by this, you're surely not trying to claim that unfounded or exaggerated allegations were thrown at the Gardaí in this case? By the DPP?

Well the DPP seem to be getting the brunt of the bad press so it would be in their favour to cast blame elsewhere. I've never before heard the dpp claim someone committed a crime "on the balance of probabilites"

benway

Due respect, but this is some cognitive dissonance right here.

If the DPP is bearing the brunt of the bad press, that says a lot about the biases of those doing the reporting. His role is to vet and test cases going to trial, to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to justify the cost, and potential ramifications, of charging the suspect and running the trial. In this instance, the evidence was found to be sorely lacking, on a dispassionate, professional appraisal.

Barnes wrote a comprehensive opinion in 2001, utterly eviscerating the Garda evidence against Bailey, on every count. The flimsiness of the case against him cannot be overstated. I don't recall the phrase "balance of probabilities" being used, but if it was, it only goes to show how weak the Garda case is - it's a lower threshold than the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters. Let's be clear, if he had been charged, any semi competent defence lawyer would have completely destroyed the State's case.

When it comes to throwing mud and seeing what will stick, it appears from the DPP's report that the Gardaí put it out on the small-town rumour mill that Bailey was guilty, then took instances of these rumours being repeated in public as evidence against him.

As for the three allegations you mentioned, the "drug addict" only became involved because he was put under pressure to make a statement against Bailey, with inducements. I met him briefly through a friend from Schull around the time that this was happening, he's wasn't a "junkie" by any stretch of the imagination, just a tearaway young lad and recreational drug user - he can't be dismissed on that front, but he was certainly a vulnerable individual. He was absolutely clear that the story about an alleged confession by Bailey while giving our "junkie" a lift had been forced out of him, by a combination of threats and inducements.

The second, the arrest and questioning of Jules Thomas, and her having made a statement implicating Bailey is equally suspect, the arrest was unlawful according to the DPP, and was made against his advice. She retracted almost as soon as she got out of Garda custody. Does an unlawful arrest and sustained, hostile interrogation, under the threat of serious charges, going as far as murder, not bear the characteristics of coercion in your book? Because it does in mine.

The approach of some of the gardai seems to have been intended to elicit a particular response from witnesses, according to the report.

Ms Thomas' original arrest and questioning on suspicion of the murder was deemed unlawful by the country's top prosecutor.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-dpp-demolished-garda-case-on-bailey-3037829.html

The last one is almost the most damning, in my book. Attempting to politically influence the criminal justice process? The source here is the State Solicitor for West Cork, Malachy Boohig, not sure how an attempt can be made to undermine his credibility ... although I'm sure that certain elements will try. This is perverting the course of justice, pure and simple, and those responsible should be identified and charged.

Either a grossly incompetent investigation was carried out in this case, or a conscious attempt was made to frame Bailey. Either way, there is a serious issue here, and I don't believe for one second that the GSOC process has made these issues "redundent" - if we want to make a statement that the Gardaí should be clean, thorough and professional, those responsible need to face criminal charges, in my view, especially those officers who attempted to circumvent the rule of law, essentially.

berrypendel

benway wrote: »

Due respect, but this is some cognitive dissonance right here.

If the DPP is bearing the brunt of the bad press, that says a lot about the biases of those doing the reporting. His role is to vet and test cases going to trial, to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to justify the cost, and potential ramifications, of charging the suspect and running the trial. In this instance, the evidence was found to be sorely lacking, on a dispassionate, professional appraisal.

Barnes wrote a comprehensive opinion in 2001, utterly eviscerating the Garda evidence against Bailey, on every count. The flimsiness of the case against him cannot be overstated. I don't recall the phrase "balance of probabilities" being used, but if it was, it only goes to show how weak the Garda case is - it's a lower threshold than the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters. Let's be clear, if he had been charged, any semi competent defence lawyer would have completely destroyed the State's case.

When it comes to throwing mud and seeing what will stick, it appears from the DPP's report that the Gardaí put it out on the small-town rumour mill that Bailey was guilty, then took instances of these rumours being repeated in public as evidence against him.

As for the three allegations you mentioned, the "drug addict" only became involved because he was put under pressure to make a statement against Bailey, with inducements. I met him briefly through a friend from Schull around the time that this was happening, he's wasn't a "junkie" by any stretch of the imagination, just a tearaway young lad and recreational drug user - he can't be dismissed on that front, but he was certainly a vulnerable individual. He was absolutely clear that the story about an alleged confession by Bailey while giving our "junkie" a lift had been forced out of him, by a combination of threats and inducements.

The second, the arrest and questioning of Jules Thomas, and her having made a statement implicating Bailey is equally suspect, the arrest was unlawful according to the DPP, and was made against his advice. She retracted almost as soon as she got out of Garda custody. Does an unlawful arrest and sustained, hostile interrogation, under the threat of serious charges, going as far as murder, not bear the characteristics of coercion in your book? Because it does in mine.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-dpp-demolished-garda-case-on-bailey-3037829.html

The last one is almost the most damning, in my book. Attempting to politically influence the criminal justice process? The source here is the State Solicitor for West Cork, Malachy Boohig, not sure how an attempt can be made to undermine his credibility ... although I'm sure that certain elements will try. This is perverting the course of justice, pure and simple, and those responsible should be identified and charged.

Either a grossly incompetent investigation was carried out in this case, or a conscious attempt was made to frame Bailey. Either way, there is a serious issue here, and I don't believe for one second that the GSOC process has made these issues "redundent" - if we want to make a statement that the Gardaí should be clean, thorough and professional, those responsible need to face criminal charges, in my view, especially those officers who attempted to circumvent the rule of law, essentially.

Barnes wrote a comprehensive opinion in 2001

is it online?

Either a grossly incompetent investigation was carried out in this case, or a conscious attempt was made to frame Bailey. Either way, there is a serious issue here, and I don't believe for one second that the GSOC process has made these issues "redundent"

possibly both, they could not get the killer but had to seem to be doing the job because of who the victim was.
I read somewhere that she had a relationship with someone, from France i think, and that that man had visited her in Cork. Is it possible they argued? Does anyone know if the garda ever traced him?

coylemj

MagicSean wrote: »

This may be sufficient for you to dam them all but I would certainly need to hear more before I'd say that somebody ****ed up.

I didn't try to 'damn them all' as you would like to think. This a classic tactic of yours when defending your colleagues - you hide behind the accusation that people who don't agree with you are trying to 'get at' the Gardai. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case.

I was referring to the fact that there was a complete failure to collect forensic evidence at the scene of the crime for which nobody has been made accountable. What followed was a clear case of gathering 'evidence' designed to bring about a conviction to save face and instead they ended up with egg on their faces.

benway

berrypendel wrote: »

is it online?

Nope, but there's a reasonably comprehensive synopsis in today's Indo, may be more details in the Supreme Court judgment when it's delivered:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-dpp-demolished-garda-case-on-bailey-3037829.html

I would hope that it will all come out in the Ombudsman's inquiry.

berrypendel

benway wrote: »

Nope, but there's a reasonably comprehensive synopsis in today's Indo, may be more details in the Supreme Court judgment when it's delivered:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-dpp-demolished-garda-case-on-bailey-3037829.html

I would hope that it will all come out in the Ombudsman's inquiry.

saw that thanks

berrypendel

coylemj wrote: »

I didn't try to 'damn them all' as you would like to think. This a classic tactic of yours when defending your colleagues - you hide behind the accusation that people who don't agree with you are trying to 'get at' the Gardai. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case.

+1

coylemj wrote: »

I was referring to the fact that there was a complete failure to collect forensic evidence at the scene of the crime for which nobody has been made accountable. What followed was a clear case of gathering 'evidence' designed to bring about a conviction to save face and instead they ended up with egg on their faces.

+1
'evidence' is the right word , note the' '

MagicSean

benway wrote: »

Due respect, but this is some cognitive dissonance right here.

If the DPP is bearing the brunt of the bad press, that says a lot about the biases of those doing the reporting. His role is to vet and test cases going to trial, to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to justify the cost, and potential ramifications, of charging the suspect and running the trial. In this instance, the evidence was found to be sorely lacking, on a dispassionate, professional appraisal.

benway wrote: »

Barnes wrote a comprehensive opinion in 2001, utterly eviscerating the Garda evidence against Bailey, on every count. The flimsiness of the case against him cannot be overstated. I don't recall the phrase "balance of probabilities" being used, but if it was, it only goes to show how weak the Garda case is - it's a lower threshold than the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters. Let's be clear, if he had been charged, any semi competent defence lawyer would have completely destroyed the State's case.

The balance of probabilities reference was in relation to the allegation of bribery and inducement, not in relation to the case against Mr Bailey.

However, in a November 2001 review of the file, a solicitor in the DPP’s office said “the balance of the evidence suggests he (the witness) is telling the truth” in relation to allegedly being offered drugs by two gardaí and he described “such investigative practices as clearly unsafe to say the least”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0109/1224310004821.html

benway wrote: »

When it comes to throwing mud and seeing what will stick, it appears from the DPP's report that the Gardaí put it out on the small-town rumour mill that Bailey was guilty, then took instances of these rumours being repeated in public as evidence against him.

I'm not exactly sure what this would achieve in the context of an investigation. Ir rumours were used as evidence in support of a detention then this is flawed anyway, no matter who started the rumour.

benway wrote: »

As for the three allegations you mentioned, the "drug addict" only became involved because he was put under pressure to make a statement against Bailey, with inducements. I met him briefly through a friend from Schull around the time that this was happening, he's wasn't a "junkie" by any stretch of the imagination, just a tearaway young lad and recreational drug user - he can't be dismissed on that front, but he was certainly a vulnerable individual. He was absolutely clear that the story about an alleged confession by Bailey while giving our "junkie" a lift had been forced out of him, by a combination of threats and inducements.

You may be right. Unfortunately when I read that he tried to sell his story to a paper he lost all credibility in my eyes.

benway wrote: »

The second, the arrest and questioning of Jules Thomas, and her having made a statement implicating Bailey is equally suspect, the arrest was unlawful according to the DPP, and was made against his advice. She retracted almost as soon as she got out of Garda custody. Does an unlawful arrest and sustained, hostile interrogation, under the threat of serious charges, going as far as murder, not bear the characteristics of coercion in your book? Because it does in mine.

A detention can be made unlawful based on minor matters of law without any intent of or actual wrongdoing on the part of the gardaí involved.

benway wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-dpp-demolished-garda-case-on-bailey-3037829.html

The last one is almost the most damning, in my book. Attempting to politically influence the criminal justice process? The source here is the State Solicitor for West Cork, Malachy Boohig, not sure how an attempt can be made to undermine his credibility ... although I'm sure that certain elements will try. This is perverting the course of justice, pure and simple, and those responsible should be identified and charged.

I'm curious as to why you think the dpp should be able to interfere with garda investigations but at the same time gardaí should not be allowed push for a conviction. All the dpp has is a paper file in front of him. He does not have the benefit of dealing face to face with those involved. As such he can make decisions that the investigating garda would not agree with. I see nothing wrong with the garda pursuing this in an attempt to convince the dpp to proceed with the case. As an example, during the taking of a statement a garda can notice certain things which indicate that the person is lying or fabricating. These mannerisms, actions and voice tones don't translate onto the paper statement the dpp reads but they would be picked up by a judge and jury. As such, the dpp is making decisions that aren't based on all the relevant matters.

benway wrote: »

Either a grossly incompetent investigation was carried out in this case, or a conscious attempt was made to frame Bailey. Either way, there is a serious issue here, and I don't believe for one second that the GSOC process has made these issues "redundent" - if we want to make a statement that the Gardaí should be clean, thorough and professional, those responsible need to face criminal charges, in my view, especially those officers who attempted to circumvent the rule of law, essentially.

It is up to the GSOC to prosecute on these occasions. Maybe the solution would be to allow GSOC to investigate alleged crimes committed before their inception.

MagicSean

coylemj wrote: »

I didn't try to 'damn them all' as you would like to think. This a classic tactic of yours when defending your colleagues - you hide behind the accusation that people who don't agree with you are trying to 'get at' the Gardai. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case.

I see no reason for you to get personal. I wasn't actually referring to your obvious dislike of the Gardaí in general. When I said "dam them all" I was referring only to those involved in the investigation as you were.

coylemj wrote: »

I was referring to the fact that there was a complete failure to collect forensic evidence at the scene of the crime for which nobody has been made accountable. What followed was a clear case of gathering 'evidence' designed to bring about a conviction to save face and instead they ended up with egg on their faces.

Or to convict someone they thought to be a vicious murderer. Are you suggesting that if their is an error made in an investigation then everybody should give up and go home? Lack of forensic evidence doesn't mean a conviction cannot be successful based on other evidence. And how do you know nobody was made accountable for errors made? Garda disciplinary actions aren't generally made public.

benway

MagicSean wrote: »

Or to convict someone they thought to be a vicious murderer. Are you suggesting that if their is an error made in an investigation then everybody should give up and go home? Lack of forensic evidence doesn't mean a conviction cannot be successful based on other evidence. And how do you know nobody was made accountable for errors made? Garda disciplinary actions aren't generally made public.

Garda intuition isn't enough, they need hard facts - this isn't a Dirty Harry sequel we're talking about here. The problem in this case is that the evidence seems to have been sought to ground a preconceived conclusion, rather than a conclusion derived from the available evidence.

MagicSean wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure what this would achieve in the context of an investigation. Ir rumours were used as evidence in support of a detention then this is flawed anyway, no matter who started the rumour.

My impression is that the Gardaí had nothing else on Bailey, other than a couple of very dubious assertions that he had confessed to third parties.

MagicSean wrote: »

A detention can be made unlawful based on minor matters of law without any intent of or actual wrongdoing on the part of the gardaí involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the DPP had advised that her detention would be unlawful, but the investigating Gardaí went ahead anyway. On any objective reading, it was clearly a tactic to apply pressure on Thomas to implicate Bailey.

MagicSean wrote: »

I'm curious as to why you think the dpp should be able to interfere with garda investigations but at the same time gardaí should not be allowed push for a conviction. All the dpp has is a paper file in front of him. He does not have the benefit of dealing face to face with those involved.

The DPP has professional expertise and training that many frontline Gardaí lack, and the benefit of a cold, dispassionate reading of the available evidence, similar to what would occur if the matter got to Court. Fact is, that the level of involvement may be a disadvantage in making key decisions, members may be emotionally overly committed to a particular strand of an investigation, or simply unable to see the wood for the trees.

The decision to prosecute falls within the ambit of the DPP's role, and properly so. Police powers need to be limited, it's a question of checks and balances.

If it's a thing that Gardaí aren't effectively communicating the evidence through the paper file, then that's an issue that should be looked at.

In any event, the Gardaí attempted to circumvent the DPP entirely, to politicise a criminal prosecution. It's outrageous behaviour - if you can't convince the DPP that you have a case, how are you going to convince a Judge? Can't believe that you're trying to justify this.

MagicSean wrote: »

It is up to the GSOC to prosecute on these occasions. Maybe the solution would be to allow GSOC to investigate alleged crimes committed before their inception.

I thought Hardiman referred the issue of the three senior Gardaí to the DPP? Although I also think there's a need for a comprehensive public inquiry into the handling of this investigation, it would be worrying if these things were just swept under the rug, even if there was internal accountability.

MagicSean

benway wrote: »

Garda intuition isn't enough, they need hard facts - this isn't a Dirty Harry sequel we're talking about here. The problem in this case is that the evidence seems to have been sought to ground a preconceived conclusion, rather than a conclusion derived from the available evidence.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. But you cannot discount the garda intuition and opinion as nothing.

benway wrote: »

My impression is that the Gardaí had nothing else on Bailey, other than a couple of very dubious assertions that he had confessed to third parties.

A confession to a third party is hardly something they should have ignored though.

benway wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the DPP had advised that her detention would be unlawful, but the investigating Gardaí went ahead anyway. On any objective reading, it was clearly a tactic to apply pressure on Thomas to implicate Bailey.

I can't see how the dpp could know that. It is up to the member in charge of a station to decide on whether to detain based on a conversation when the person is brought into custody. How the dpp could know in advance what the contents of this conversation would be is beyond me.

benway wrote: »

The DPP has professional expertise and training that many frontline Gardaí lack, and the benefit of a cold, dispassionate reading of the available evidence, similar to what would occur if the matter got to Court. Fact is, that the level of involvement may be a disadvantage in making key decisions, members may be emotionally overly committed to a particular strand of an investigation, or simply unable to see the wood for the trees.

On this we disagree. The court does not look at cold hard paper facts. They look at the person giving the evidence as well.

benway wrote: »

The decision to prosecute falls within the ambit of the DPP's role, and properly so. Police powers need to be limited, it's a question of checks and balances.

If it's a thing that Gardaí aren't effectively communicating the evidence through the paper file, then that's an issue that should be looked at.

How to you communicate something like this on a statement? It's something that i think really needs to be addressed. In a serious investigation there really should be a rep from the dpp involved, even as an observer, from the outset to avoid these issues.

benway wrote: »

In any event, the Gardaí attempted to circumvent the DPP entirely, to politicise a criminal prosecution. It's outrageous behaviour - if you can't convince the DPP that you have a case, how are you going to convince a Judge? Can't believe that you're trying to justify this.

I would think it would be easier to convince a judge in a case with less physical evidence as they have the benefit of seeing the testimony first hand and can make decisions based on that as opposed to a written statement. The idea that the DPP can work completely free from political pressure is naive but I do agree with you that the Gardaí should have no part in the politics of a case. There should be a line and in this case it would seem it was crossed, although with little effect.

benway wrote: »

I thought Hardiman referred the issue of the three senior Gardaí to the DPP? Although I also think there's a need for a comprehensive public inquiry into the handling of this investigation, it would be worrying if these things were just swept under the rug, even if there was internal accountability.

I think most of the issues raised would have been already addressed in the reforms brought in after the mcbrearty incident. i can't see the problem with a public enquiry though.