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.

coylemj

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.

MagicSean wrote: »

I wasn't actually referring to your obvious dislike of the Gardaí in general.

There you go again, proving my point exactly.

berrypendel

berrypendel wrote: »

is it online?

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?

http://www.herald.ie/news/sophie-lover-was-murder-suspect-2967713.html

benway

MagicSean wrote: »

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

Intuition based on verifiable facts might count for something. In their absence, it really isn't anything at all. If you are certain that someone is guilty, you should be able to prove it. If you can't, you need to reappraise your intuition rather than keep hammering away.

Seems in this case that the Gardaí looked at Bailey as a ladies man, a slightly odd character, living in the locality, mixing in the same kinds of circles as the victim, put 2 + 2 together and came up with 5. And then ran with their theory despite the lack of any real evidence. Profiling, essentially, which has been shown to be a poor way of running an investigation.

I really would like to know if any other avenues of investigation were seriously explored.

MagicSean wrote: »

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

When one witness makes and then retracts such a statement, alleging coercion, it raises a question mark over the witness. When a second one does it, it raises a question mark over the investigation. Where there's a third, as there is in this case, it starts to look like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

I'm guessing that she was being held as an accessory to a murder based on the presumption that Bailey was guilty. In the absence of any evidence for that proposition, I can't see how it could be used to ground her arrest of a third party as an accessory. I think that this is an opinion that could be reached on principle without reference to the particular facts.

In any event, it seems that the DPP advised against this course, the Gardaí worked ahead, unsurprisingly didn't get a useful statement from her, and I think ended up paying damages to her, not 100% sure of that. Well worth it.

MagicSean wrote: »

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

You're right about that, but on the strength of what I know of the evidence in this case, I'd say there was a decent chance that the defense could have successfully applied to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence without it even going to the jury - the case was that weak.

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

I'm happy enough with the system as it stands - the DPP and the Gardaí have distinct roles, and intermingling would only muddy the waters, raise the prospect of undue Garda influence in the prosecutorial process, and insufficient external oversight of investigations.

Seems to me that the Gardaí are forever looking to have their jobs made easier for them, looking for extra powers and reduced supervision. Personally, I think that better training on information gathering and communications skills coupled with a more professional organisational ethos would be more effective.

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

If you agree that the line was crossed, then you must agree that steps must be taken to ensure that those responsible are held accountable. Otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent, reinforcing a culture of perceived impunity. The DPP should operate entirely free of political interference: there's nothing naive about that statement. It's not acceptable that senior Gardaí would even dream of having the Minister pull strings for them.

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

The way you say the McBrearty "incident", it's like it was an isolated, once-off thing, as if there wasn't a whole culture in the force of cutting corners at best, outright corruption at worst. As if it was confined to a few bad apples in Donegal. It would certainly send a strong message if those responsible for this debacle were publicly held to account, especially the senior members.

I would like to see Ray McAndrew's report on this mess being made public, also.

pirelli

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

The organisation has changed but needs a truth and reconciliation process. I know that whilst it may have changed there are serving members that would have been involved in miscarriages of justice from years ago. It would be helpful for society if they were encouraged to resolve such matters by being truthful.

As for the money for testimony, it was a very high profile case and they can make promises without delivering. It is improbable and I would tend to agree with you that it's unlikely scenario, However as Sherlock Holmes always said:“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”


Subsequently there was an inquiry into the matter and they did find the English witness story more credible and the Garda less credible.

Corruptable

Interesting discussion. While I accept that AGS has changed a great deal since then, the case doesn't inspire confidence. The big question I wonder about is the "why?" this dreadful situation arose. It clearly does no good for AGS, or the State to have such bad PR and what could have been another miscarriage of justice unless there was something personal behind the suspicion.

Surely it's easy for anyone to see that setting your sights on one person as a suspect from a early stage without a large amount of corroborative evidence has a huge potential to end in a miscarriage of justice. It's akin to simply relying on one source for all decisions, which is something I personally would never do in any activity, and certainly not in an investigation where a person's freedom is at stake and there's nothing other than a few unreliable scraps of evidence to support that position.

jonsnow

What I don,t understand is if the DPP were so set against the garda pressure to prosecute bailey (and rightly so it appears) why were they going along with the french extradition request and actually trying to enforce it.Are was it another arm of the state that was handling the case for the government?

Carawaystick

jonsnow wrote: »

What I don,t understand is if the DPP were so set against the garda pressure to prosecute bailey (and rightly so it appears) why were they going along with the french extradition request and actually trying to enforce it.Are was it another arm of the state that was handling the case for the government?

I didn't think the dpp were involved in extradition, more cops and ministry of justice and courts??

Hypotethically, if the alleges criminality by gardaí by trying to influence the dpp, who would prosecute? The dpp is a bit compromised by being the complainant, no?

Would it be the gsoc? or some other arm of state or something else?

ResearchWill

jonsnow wrote: »

What I don,t understand is if the DPP were so set against the garda pressure to prosecute bailey (and rightly so it appears) why were they going along with the french extradition request and actually trying to enforce it.Are was it another arm of the state that was handling the case for the government?

It is the Office of the Chief State Solicitor who acts in such matters for the Minister for Justice. The DPP has no involvement.

censuspro

What I'm curious about is:

1. On what basis did the High Court sanction the extradition of Ian Bailey?
2. How do French authorities propose to convict Ian Bailey in absentia when there is clearly no evidence to do so?
3. What evidence did the French authorities have that led them to believe they could secure an extradition and conviction in France? Surely they would have carried out some preliminary inquiries before they made they request for extradition?

Carawaystick

censuspro wrote: »

What I'm curious about is:

1. What evidence did the French authorities have that led them to believe they could secure an extradition and conviction in France? Surely they would have carried out some preliminary inquiries before they made they request for extradition?

Well they convinced our High Court about the extradition....

The civil law system in use in France is very different to the system here, it's common practise to lock up suspects for the investigation

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.

it is online now

johnnyskeleton

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

it should be, but that isn't always the case and there are examples of civil proceedings/investigations in advance of a criminal prosecution. The tribunals are a good example, local authority enforcement proceedings another

Steviewinger

Will he go to France now I wonder ?

171170

Steviewinger wrote: »

Will he go to France now I wonder ?

Has he a choice?

Steviewinger

My question is I wonder if it will go to the supreme court. I see he has since been released on bail

171170

Interesting to see in today's media reports that the legislation under which Bailey's extradition got the go ahead is called the CRIMINAL LAW (EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION) ACT 2019

this legislation is described as

An Act to extend the criminal law of the State to certain conduct engaged in outside the State and in that regard to give effect to certain provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence done at Istanbul on 11 May 2011; for that purpose to amend the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 ; and to provide for related matters.

Looks as though Charlie Flanagan may have slipped the Bailey extradition bit through under the "related matters" provision - what a sly conniving bast@rd he is! Especially given that the murder happened 23 years before the legislation was enacted.

Yet we're told that Lisa Smith can't be prosecuted for terrorism because some piece of EU legislation hasn't yet been enacted. Go figure.

GerardKeating

Would this not be considered respective legislation with respect to the alleged crimes in Ian Bailey?

Also for extradition, does not the same offence have to exist in both juristractions? While murder would exist in both counries. does Ireland also claim the right to prosecute the murder of irish citizens abroad?

GM228

I'm not sure how the 2019 Act is considered a change in legislation to allow his extradition, it does not provide any legislative base for it and it does not take away from the fact that the Supreme Court in 2012 held that there is a jurisdictional bar to his surrender by virtue of S44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 which states:-

A person shall not be surrendered under this Act if the offence specified in the European arrest warrant issued in respect of him or her was committed or is alleged to have been committed in a place other than the issuing state and the act or omission of which the offence consists does not, by virtue of having been committed in a place other than the State, constitute an offence under the law of the State.

I think until S44 is amended the Minister for Justice is estopped from revisiting this ruling.

My understanding is they are trying to use the Extradition (European Convention On Extradition) Order 2019 rather than the 2019 Act as an excuse to revisit the issue, but that itself is also problematic, not least because of the date applicable to the offence and potentially issues surrounding the use of "French Republic" as opposed to "France" in the limitation section of the Order, the last part is a stretch but in the world of litigation it may become an issue.

GM228

GerardKeating wrote: »

Would this not be considered respective legislation with respect to the alleged crimes in Ian Bailey?

Also for extradition, does not the same offence have to exist in both juristractions? While murder would exist in both counries. does Ireland also claim the right to prosecute the murder of irish citizens abroad?

The same offence has to (and does exist) in both states, how they prosecute them though does not have to be the same, in other words both do not have to exercise extra territorial jurisdiction.

cobhguy28

171170 wrote: »

Interesting to see in today's media reports that the legislation under which Bailey's extradition got the go ahead is called the CRIMINAL LAW (EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION) ACT 2019

this legislation is described as

An Act to extend the criminal law of the State to certain conduct engaged in outside the State and in that regard to give effect to certain provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence done at Istanbul on 11 May 2011; for that purpose to amend the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 ; and to provide for related matters.

Looks as though Charlie Flanagan may have slipped the Bailey extradition bit through under the "related matters" provision - what a sly conniving bast@rd he is! Especially given that the murder happened 23 years before the legislation was enacted.

Yet we're told that Lisa Smith can't be prosecuted for terrorism because some piece of EU legislation hasn't yet been enacted. Go figure.

How does this have anything to do with Baileys case.