RTE Report on court case arising from referee assault during 2010 Leinster final

coylemj

The RTE Legal reporter Paul Reynolds reported on this case in a matter of fact way near the end of tonight's 9 o'clock news on RTE1. The two defendants who assaulted the referee were convicted and fined €1,000 each in the Dublin District Court.

My concern is the way he finished the report when he said....

Although they can appeal, they now have criminal records

Which would be correct if they had pleaded guilty and therefore could only appeal based on the severity of the sentences but it isn't because they denied the charges i.e. pleaded not guilty so have all options open to them in an appeal.

Doesn't he realise that if they appeal and get the convictions overturned (however unlikely that outcome may be given that it was shown live on TV) that they then will have no criminal conviction?

looking4advice

coylemj wrote: »

The RTE Legal reporter Paul Reynolds reported on this case in a matter of fact way near the end of tonight's 9 o'clock news on RTE1. The two defendants who assaulted the referee were convicted and fined €1,000 each in the Dublin District Court.

My concern is the way he finished the report when he said....

Although they can appeal, they now have criminal records

Which would be correct if they had pleaded guilty and therefore could only appeal based on the severity of the sentences but it isn't because they denied the charges i.e. pleaded not guilty so have all options open to them in an appeal.

Doesn't he realise that if they appeal and get the convictions overturned (however unlikely that outcome may be given that it was shown live on TV) that they then will have no criminal conviction?

That post doesn't make sense. They do have criminal records as it stands.

They probably will appeal and they can have a full re hearing of the case or simply plea against severity ie try and get left without a criminal record.

They may even Judicial review the judges position to proceed with the hearing on the basis that the referee withdrew his complaint

Robbo

Perhaps a little confusion given that it was a GAA story and the usual procedure for any kind of fracas or controversy is appeal after appeal?

coylemj

looking4advice wrote: »

That post doesn't make sense. They do have criminal records as it stands.

Do they?

If you're convicted of drink driving and disqualified, the disqualification only cuts in when the period during which you can lodge an appeal has expired and you have not lodged such an appeal. If you do lodge an appeal, the disqualification is put on hold pending the appeal.

Does the same apply to the actual conviction in the case of offences like an assault i.e. assuming they had clean sheets before this case, does the law say they still have clean sheets pending the hearing of the appeal?

looking4advice

coylemj wrote: »

looking4advice wrote: »

That post doesn't make sense. They do have criminal records as it stands.

Do they?

If you're convicted of drink driving and disqualified, the disqualification only cuts in when the period during which you can lodge an appeal has expired and you have not lodged such an appeal. If you do lodge an appeal, the disqualification is put on hold pending the appeal.

Does the same apply to the actual conviction in the case of offences like an assault i.e. assuming they had clean sheets before this case, does the law say they still have clean sheets pending the hearing of the appeal?

In disqualification cases the "conviction"(some would dispute whether RTA is a conviction) starts straight away but the disqualification commences after 14 days.

In the above case the conviction remains until such time that the appeal and recognisance is entered into. They can even appeal outside the 14 days by extending time to appeal.

coylemj

looking4advice wrote: »

some would dispute whether RTA is a conviction

Here's the whole 1961 act, search for the word 'conviction'....

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/print.html

I think you'll find that 'some' includes you and nobody else.

ResearchWill

looking4advice wrote: »

That post doesn't make sense. They do have criminal records as it stands.

They probably will appeal and they can have a full re hearing of the case or simply plea against severity ie try and get left without a criminal record.

They may even Judicial review the judges position to proceed with the hearing on the basis that the referee withdrew his complaint

I do not believe they have any grounds for Judicial Review because the complainant withdrew the complaint. In fact if he never complained AGS had enough evidence to mount a prosecution.

Many cases are brought and continue every day where the complainant withdraws complaint, it of course is a issue where the complainant is the only witness, but in certain situations only on indictment the complainants statement can be read to the jury if the complainant refuses to swear up or gives evidence in contradiction to original statement.

Also in relation to JR if it was a remedy in this case they more than likely would have to appeal first to allow the appeal to fix the issue.

castie

ResearchWill wrote: »

I do not believe they have any grounds for Judicial Review because the complainant withdrew the complaint. In fact if he never complained AGS had enough evidence to mount a prosecution.

Many cases are brought and continue every day where the complainant withdraws complaint, it of course is a issue where the complainant is the only witness, but in certain situations only on indictment the complainants statement can be read to the jury if the complainant refuses to swear up or gives evidence in contradiction to original statement.

Also in relation to JR if it was a remedy in this case they more than likely would have to appeal first to allow the appeal to fix the issue.

Even if hes withdrawn it.
I think TV coverage was evidence enough.

MagicSean

The problem is that people differ widely on what they consider to be their criminal record. There is really no such thing. There is either your conviction history or your records on the Garda computer system. A criminal record would probably be some kind of amalgemation of the two of these which would include convictions, charges, summons, arrests and cautions.

Reloc8

No its not. To say 'they now have criminal records' is completely accurate. There are in other words records of the persons convicted having committed crime. That said, a court when enquiring on this point will generally ask correctly 'does he/she have previous criminal convictions' and not 'what's his/her criminal record'. I say generally but in fairness everyone with a bit of cop on knows what is being referred to by reference to a 'criminal record'.

On a side note, to suggest that a the fact of a person having been arrested or summonsed should form part of a 'criminal record' is a bit much, having regard to the presumption of innocence. A record of being arrested or prosecuted is in no way probative of having been guilty of criminal conduct.

Anyway, as regards the issue raised by the OP there's absolutely nothing wrong with the article. Its entirely factually accurate.

Order 101 of the District Court Rules as amended provides that an appeal when lodged and recognisances entered into acts as a stay of execution in respect of the penalty imposed (fine and/or imprisonment).

Even though the Circuit Court proceeds to hear a de novo appeal, the entry into an appeal does not vacate the order of the District Court convicting the gentlemen involved.

In the event of the Circuit Court allowing an appeal or the High Court quashing the convictions (on a side note again, the fact of the injured party not giving evidence is not in itself anything the prosecution have to worry about in this case) then the gentlemen will no longer have 'criminal records'. Until that happens there is nothing inaccurate in saying that they do.

ResearchWill wrote: »

I
Also in relation to JR if it was a remedy in this case they more than likely would have to appeal first to allow the appeal to fix the issue.

Actually no - the existence of an alternative remedy by way of appeal doesn't preclude the commencement of Judicial Review. It is something the High Court may have regard to, all relief by way of judicial review being discretionary in nature. What you can't do is run an appeal and a JR in tandem. Its one or the other.

ResearchWill

Reloc8 wrote: »

No its not. To say 'they now have criminal records' is completely accurate. There are in other words records of the persons convicted having committed crime. That said, a court when enquiring on this point will generally ask correctly 'does he/she have previous criminal convictions' and not 'what's his/her criminal record'. I say generally but in fairness everyone with a bit of cop on knows what is being referred to by reference to a 'criminal record'.

On a side note, to suggest that a the fact of a person having been arrested or summonsed should form part of a 'criminal record' is a bit much, having regard to the presumption of innocence. A record of being arrested or prosecuted is in no way probative of having been guilty of criminal conduct.

Anyway, as regards the issue raised by the OP there's absolutely nothing wrong with the article. Its entirely factually accurate.

Order 101 of the District Court Rules as amended provides that an appeal when lodged and recognisances entered into acts as a stay of execution in respect of the penalty imposed (fine and/or imprisonment).

Even though the Circuit Court proceeds to hear a de novo appeal, the entry into an appeal does not vacate the order of the District Court convicting the gentlemen involved.

In the event of the Circuit Court allowing an appeal or the High Court quashing the convictions (on a side note again, the fact of the injured party not giving evidence is not in itself anything the prosecution have to worry about in this case) then the gentlemen will no longer have 'criminal records'. Until that happens there is nothing inaccurate in saying that they do.




Actually no - the existence of an alternative remedy by way of appeal doesn't preclude the commencement of Judicial Review. It is something the High Court may have regard to, all relief by way of judicial review being discretionary in nature. What you can't do is run an appeal and a JR in tandem. Its one or the other.

Recent High Court jurisprudence favours using an appeal unless an appeal is not an effective remedy. Example being JR of the decision of the ORAC without appeal, if appeal is not an effective remedy then JR but a person takes a risk if appeal is found by the HC to have been the correct course.

Also you can appeal so as to protect any issue of time limits while going ahead with JR again in such a case as where you require the HC to answer a specific question that your appeal can not fix.

In relation to the OP if there was an issue with the complainant withdrawing complaint then that could in my opinion by decided by CC on appeal, if the CC go against the accused then if the defendant wishes he can JR that decision.

Corruptable

So, criminal record = convictions? Seems largely irrelevant to me anyway, because as Sean has pointed out, the PULSE system is now widely used to record any incident where you've been involved in and there's no proper judicial oversight of that. So while you may beat the conviction, your activities will still show up to any Garda that has reason to search for you.

It's not the first time one of those convicted was involved in this type of behaviour anyway I believe, as at another match he was involved in a crowd scuffle according to a person who was there and vaguely knows the person for his avid support for Louth to the point of violence.

Victor

In advocating that convictions for driving offences aren't really convictions, is that like saying that bare-fisted boxing is a legitimate part of Gaelic Football?