The Anglo Tapes.... prejudicing any trial now?

DeVore

I have suspicions about why these tapes have "suddenly" surfaced... whats the situation now about their admissibility in evidence?

Have they prejudiced any possible trial now that they are all over the internet?

Cody Pomeray

I haven't read much of the back-story as regards how the tapes were obtained. But even where the fact of recording the telephone conversation was not known to the individual in question, or where the evidence was improperly obtained, this is not necessarily fatal. A recent example of improperly obtained evidence securing a conviction is Hayden v. The Governor of St Patrick's.

The pre-trial publicity question is the more interesting question here.

Although there is some interesting case law in this jurisdiction, there is nothing approaching the scale of the public awareness surrounding Anglo/ IBRC and near-collapse of the Irish banking system.

Perhaps two close matches would be Redmond v. The DPP, where application for a stay on the grounds of unfair pre-trial publicity was refused, and secondly, the adjournment of the CJ Haughey trial, where Haugh J adjourned the hearing indefinitely on grounds that the comments of the Tánaiste had prejudiced Haughey's right to a fair hearing. This was undertaken to allow the "fade factor" to arise.

In the former judgement, Kearns J (as he then was) wrote:

I see no difficulty whatsoever preventing a judge from discharging his duties in most cases by warning a jury panel of a particular risk, in this case prejudicial publicity, and then inviting self-disqualification of any potential juror who feels he or she cannot deal fairly with the case. Is it to be supposed that a jury panel will not take to heart a clear warning given by a trial judge in such circumstances? The entire conduct of trials within the jury system proceeds on the assumption that juries will take seriously any directions and guidance given to them by the trial judge.

Indeed, self disqualification was a tool operated by Carroll J in the Catherine Nevin trial.

In the latter judgement referenced above (involving Haughey's trial), Carney J, whilst acknowledging the strong feelings people had about Haughey, wrote

...there is an onus on a judge where the trial of an accused may be put in issue by allegations of prejudicial publicity to determine, firstly, if the risk of an unfair trial is a real one and, if so, if it can be overcome by the giving of appropriate warnings or directions by the trial judge in the first instance to the jury panel and, during the trial itself, to the jury.

These cases appear to suggest that dismissal is an extreme and final resort, and that there must be some serious rationale supporting the belief that the accused will not get a fair trial, or that the jury will not be able to adhere to the directions of a trial judge. After all, in D v. The DPP, Denham J (as she then was) ruled:

The jurors would be told during the trial that they should find facts on evidence presented to the court, and on such evidence alone. At the end of the trial the trial judge would charge them inter alia that they were to find the facts, they were the sole judge of facts, and that the decision on facts must be based on evidence before the court.[...] Also, it would impute to the juror a belief that he/she believes all they read in an interview and article in a newspaper. While accepting the danger of a general atmosphere of prejudice I consider that it is wrong to impute naiveity to jurors.

It's a hard one to call, and notwithstanding the fact that Anglo is a story/ phenomenon in a league of its own, I would suggest that there is unlikely to be a dismissal on the grounds of pre-trial publicity, however, an adjournment a la Haughey may be on the cards in order to facilitate the "fade factor".

DeVore

Okaaaay... *backs away from the screen*...




Ok, seriously, that's a very thorough and full answer I'm going to have to do some reading for. I (like everyone!) question the timing and the motive behind the release of these tapes, now. Maybe I've been watching too much House of Cards...

Thanks for the answer though, one day I hope to understand it fully

Marcusm

Neither of the people on the tapes has been subject to criminal allegations at this stage nor has any part of that government guarantee or subsequent bailout. The cases currently underway relate to very specific matters concerning financing provided for the purchase of shares by certain Anglo clients of shares in Anglo itself.

Cody Pomeray

DeVore wrote: »

Thanks for the answer though, one day I hope to understand it fully

Yes having looked over my post I see your point, it wasn't clear.

The clearer answer would have been to answer like this.

1. The fact that the tape recordings may have been improperly obtained is not a crashing blow to any prosecution being brought. That is because there are, I believe, "extraordinary excusing circumstances" for the recordings having been brought to public awareness, and the breach of any constitutional right (which seems extremely implausible) would have been unintentional.

2. Next, in respect of the enormous publicity: if necessary, the Irish judiciary appear to rely on giving a story time to fade out of the media sensationalism or to simply direct jurors to separate their personal opinions from the jury responsibilities (and the courts simply trust jurors to do so).

The Irish courts tend not to dismiss criminal cases on grounds of pre-trial publicity.

godtabh

Has the source of the tapes been confirmed?

Robbo

godtabh wrote: »

Has the source of the tapes been confirmed?

According to Colm Keena in today's Times, the tapes were supplied to the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation, the ODCE and to the Quinns.

Fiery mutant

I wonder could it be that the tapes were leaked by someone close to the guys on the tapes, in the hope that they might prejudice any future trial.

Cody Pomeray

Not sure about that FM, would have made more sense to just destroy the tapes altogether in that case, since there has not been any comparable evidence gathered to date (or none that we know of, rather).

John Bowe and Peter FitzGerald weren't really under specific focus prior to this either, as far as I am aware.

godtabh

Robbo wrote: »

According to Colm Keena in today's Times, the tapes were supplied to the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation, the ODCE and to the Quinns.

But who supplied them?

handlemaster

godtabh wrote: »

But who supplied them?

Does it really matter <? your wondering who supplied them when you should be discussing the implictions of such attitudes and what it has done to our country. Why are people not posting more on this ?

godtabh

handlemaster wrote: »

Does it really matter <? your wondering who supplied them when you should be discussing the implictions of such attitudes and what it has done to our country. Why are people not posting more on this ?

Of course it matters.

I think most people are aware of the **** that was going on in Anglo over the years. Now we have the detail.

But how where private conversations recorded? Do similar recordings exist with Anglo employees and government officials, with Central Bank officials etc?

It then goes back to DeVore's original point. Knowing the source of these days would give the motives for realising them now. The tapes at 5+ years old now. Why release them now? Is it to discredit and/or prevent an investigation? Is it political point scoring? etc.

handlemaster

godtabh wrote: »

Of course it matters.

I think most people are aware of the **** that was going on in Anglo over the years. Now we have the detail.

But how where private conversations recorded? Do similar recordings exist with Anglo employees and government officials, with Central Bank officials etc?

It then goes back to DeVore's original point. Knowing the source of these days would give the motives for realising them now. The tapes at 5+ years old now. Why release them now? Is it to discredit and/or prevent an investigation? Is it political point scoring? etc.

Its standard practice to record conversations internally that are made/received from trading employees. How the government can say they didnt know is ridiculious

godtabh

Is there a legal requirement to do it? If not why is it done?

godtabh

So the Gardai had the tapes and some body leaked them. Sounds like a total stitch up

Cody Pomeray

What do you mean a stitch-up? Stitching someone up has very different connotations to my mind, usually involving luring an individual into self incrimination or otherwise incriminating an innocent party.

It is scarcely credible that the over-riding public interest in deliberating, reflecting upon, and generally just being made aware of the origin of our immense economic collapse constitutes a 'stitch up' either.

As unfortunate as any public demonization of certain individuals may be, I am reminded of Lord Taylor's comments in the UK on the demonization of Rosemary West in the UK media. Taylor effectively said that such a dramatic response is the inevitable consequence of awful deeds, and I think that applies in this case too, where some serious wrong appears to have been committed, at enormous cost to our society. The people in the tapes would be foolish to expect that to go unreported or unremarked, or even un-despised.

handlemaster

godtabh wrote: »

Is there a legal requirement to do it? If not why is it done?

As far as I understand its not legally required but is encouraged by the central bank. If trades are been carried out there is an inherant risk of disputes of what trades were requested. It basically covers the bank and ultimately their customers in the event of disaggreement