Acquitted Judge - and we have to pay the €1 million bill

unkel

Remenber judge Brian Curtin? Suspected of having child porn, but was acquitted and he gets a full judges pension (after only working 5 years) and we also have to pick up his €1,000,000 legal costs

How can this be just?

Mod: Please don't make libelous accusations that endanger this site.

SV

It isn't just.
Welcome to Ireland.


The top are scum and shít on everyone and everyone takes it.

FatherLen

Mr Curtin was acquitted on the charges of possession of child pornography.

disgusting ruling

BeerWolf

Scenarios like this I'd easily welcome vigilante justice.

daRobot

What a vile, slippery cnut.

And to think he had the audacity to pass judgement on others, and sentence them, while this was happening in the background.

Unfortunately, he knew the law.

kraggy

FatherLen wrote: »

disgusting ruling

The judge didn't have a choice. If a warrant is out of date, it can't be used. Blame those who acted on a warrant after its expiry date.

Serious fúck up.

Boombastic

I wonder who else is involved. Sick bastard should loose his pension at least.




Did they ever fully investigate the dakey house of horrors and the high ranking officials involved

April O Neill

FatherLen wrote: »

disgusting ruling

I know, HOW would you wangle your way out of that one?

Oh, I see, on a technicality. :mad:

Boombastic

kraggy wrote: »

The judge didn't have a choice. If a warrant is out of date, it can't be used. Blame those who submitted an invalid warrant.

Serious fúck up.

**** up or convenient? Sounds like a cover up.

General General

BeerWolf wrote: »

Scenarios like this I'd easily welcome vigilante justice.

Scenarios like this will inevitably produce vigilante/revenge attacks, I guess. & the longer it goes before the attacks, the worse those attacks will be.

Maybe that's me quoting Mao, I read a biography of his there a while ago..

Cody Pomeray

Ireland has the strictest exclusionary rule in the world when it comes to unconstitutionally obtained evidence, as in the Curtin case.

It's been criticised for years both by judges and by law reform groups, and nothing has ever been done about it. There have been many 'Curtins' and there will be many more until there is legal reform, or more likely, a referendum.

humanji

Boombastic wrote: »

**** up or convenient? Sounds like a cover up.

If it was a cover up, would it not be more convenient to not find anything?

msg11

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Ireland has the strictest exclusionary rule in the world when it comes to unconstitutionally obtained evidence, as in the Curtin case.

It's been criticised for years both by judges and by law reform groups, and nothing has ever been done about it. There have been many 'Curtins' and there will be many more until there is legal reform, or more likely, a referendum.

To busy fixing car tax loopholes, they rather some sicko freely roam the streets while paying him a pension than have cars going around with no tax.

goose2005

I wonder would he have the chutzpah to ask for his computer back?

The Oireachtas inquiry never actually held public hearings or got to quiz Mr Curtin personally and was bogged down in legal challenges for two years.

The mind boggles.

kraggy

Boombastic wrote: »

**** up or convenient? Sounds like a cover up.

No, just a serious fúck up. I seriously doubt the Gardaí purposely raided his home after the warrant expired in order for him to get off.

BattleCorp

I'm not standing up for the man, but is calling him a paedophile when he hasn't been convicted of a crime defamatory?

humanji

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not standing up for the man, but is calling him a paedophile when he hasn't been convicted of a crime defamatory?

Yeah, I edited it out.

Eoin

kraggy wrote: »

The judge didn't have a choice. If a warrant is out of date, it can't be used. Blame those who acted on a warrant after its expiry date.

Serious fúck up.

I think I remember this - it wasn't an obvious "fúck up".

I think what happened was the warrant was executed x amount of days after the start of the day it was issued - not x amount of days from the time of day it was actually signed & dated. The Gardai believed they had until the end of the day, but the judge ruled otherwise.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Boombastic wrote: »

I wonder who else is involved. Sick bastard should loose his pension at least.




Did they ever fully investigate the dakey house of horrors and the high ranking officials involved

But for what reason, since he was never convicted of any crime?
Worth noting he had always denied the claim that he was responsible for the downloads.

gallag

Absolutely disgusting that the time of day on a bit of paper is more important than being caught red handed. Pile of ****e!!

Boombastic

humanji wrote: »

If it was a cover up, would it not be more convenient to not find anything?

probably an over zealous rougue garda who didn't know how things worked started the ball rolling by raiding curtain. How long was the warrant sitting in the garda station? The higher ups and the legal profession put a stop to it.

Or maybe action needed to be seen to be taken

Or maybe they were running out of comittees for the boys to sit on and had to get the boys a bit of work.


I don't know, but it stinks.

Child porn images
Charges
Out of date warrant threw it out of court 2 years later
Impeachment proceedings
Retirement due to ill health before he cold be called as a witness
Oireachtas inquiry, which didn't speak to him but his legal team
Inquiry held up by legal challenges, supreme court rules it to proceed.

Letter of resignation to mcaleese via bertie days before he is due to appear to give evidence but days after he qualifies for pension. :

Taxpayer picks up tab

Boombastic

Old and grey wrote: »

But for what reason, since he was never convicted of any crime?
Worth noting he had always denied the claim that he was responsible for the downloads.

Who else is he claiming had access to his computer? If he is claiming it wasn't him then he's covering for someone or did they just appear?

homerjay2005

April O Neill wrote: »

I know, HOW would you wangle your way out of that one?

Oh, I see, on a technicality. :mad:

what was the technicality?

token101

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Ireland has the strictest exclusionary rule in the world when it comes to unconstitutionally obtained evidence, as in the Curtin case.

It's been criticised for years both by judges and by law reform groups, and nothing has ever been done about it. There have been many 'Curtins' and there will be many more until there is legal reform, or more likely, a referendum.

How many potential travesties of justice have been averted because of these rules? The Gardai were obviously sloppy at best here and completely incompetent at worst. I'd rather see 1,000 'guilty' people walk the street than see one innocent person jailed.

Eoin

token101 wrote: »

How many potential travesties of justice have been averted because of these rules? The Gardai were obviously sloppy at best here and completely incompetent at worst. I'd rather see 1,000 'guilty' people walk the street than see one innocent person jailed.

I don't think it was obviously sloppy or incompetent by the Gardai, if you read my earlier post. I am fairly sure that was what happened.

Cody Pomeray

token101 wrote: »

How many potential travesties of justice have been averted because of these rules?

It's hard to define where the travesty of justice lies, as such, when a person's constitutional rights may have been breached.

The Gardaí should manage to get very basic details right.

One reason explored by the courts, in upholding the rule that excludes this sort of evidence, is that the lawful integrity of Garda investigations. When a court steps in and says "this case cannot proceed, you breached this guy's fundamental constitutional rights to get your evidence" it stops the Gardaí from abusing their position in the future. They know they are answerable to a higher power, and this gives them a focus to consider the constitutional rights of suspects.

So I can see some validity in that approach, it's not a black and white situation. We shouldn't scrap the rule altogether. However, we could just bring it into line with countries like the UK, where there is greater flexibility.

Eoin wrote: »

I don't think it was obviously sloppy or incompetent by the Gardai, if you read my earlier post. I am fairly sure that was what happened.

No it was very clear. Gardaí deal with search warrants on a regular basis. They ought to know how to count the days before it expires, and understand the meaning of the word "within" in accordance with the Intepretation Act. This is not rocket science. There was nothing complicated in it.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Boombastic wrote: »

Who else is he claiming had access to his computer? If he is claiming it wasn't him then he's covering for someone or did they just appear?

One: He was convicted of nothing,nada!
Two: He always claimed that others had access to his computer.

Of course if you have evidence other than that in the public domain then by all means share it.

token101

Eoin wrote: »

I don't think it was obviously sloppy or incompetent by the Gardai, if you read my earlier post. I am fairly sure that was what happened.

I read it; how was it not sloppy? Surely they can tell the time can't they? If they get 48 hours to execute a warrant then they take all necessary precautions and expedite the process.

Son Of A Vidic

Ah yes, the famous case where the search warrant was out of date. One would expect extra care to be taken, especially when a case involves a member of the judicary. Free Masons? Pedo Ring? Who knows really? But it was certainly all very convenient.

Ash.J.Williams

Boombastic wrote: »

I wonder who else is involved. Sick bastard should loose his pension at least.




Did they ever fully investigate the dakey house of horrors and the high ranking officials involved

nope

Bullseye1

Is there a reason why a search warrant cannot be provided for a period of a week? When was the warrant issued and for how long? Why was there a delay in acting on it?

omahaid

To be honest any evidence I've experienced suggests that the judiciary are above the law and are not subject to any criticism. This case is further evidence to my mind.

Eoin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No it was very clear. Gardaí deal with search warrants on a regular basis. They ought to know how to count the days before it expires, and understand the meaning of the word "within" in accordance with the Intepretation Act. This is not rocket science. There was nothing complicated in it.

But I don't think it was all that clear cut as you make it out to be at the time.

token101 wrote: »

I read it; how was it not sloppy? Surely they can tell the time can't they? If they get 48 hours to execute a warrant then they take all necessary precautions and expedite the process.

They thought they had 48 hours (or whatever amount) starting from when the warrant was actually issued - not the start of the day it was issued.

wil

Eoin wrote: »

I think I remember this - it wasn't an obvious "fúck up".

I think what happened was the warrant was executed x amount of days after the start of the day it was issued - not x amount of days from the time of day it was actually signed & dated. The Gardai believed they had until the end of the day, but the judge ruled otherwise.

Shocking.
Why did they leave it to (wrong) last day to execute the warrant? Is this the stuff of conspiracy theories? Does somebody not have enough experience of search warrants to know how they can get thrown out in court on technicalities?
How did everything time out so coincidentally?

Why would a judge rule that a relatively minor technicality took precedence over a serious accusation?
Didn't the accused also have the right to address the accusations properly and justly in court and prove his innocence not leave under a cloud?
Why are technicalities often the sole basis for cases being thrown out.

Why is it not libellous of the paper to describe him as "disgraced"

Doesn't this sort of case raise more questions of our justice system than answer them?
FAQ

Cody Pomeray

Eoin wrote: »

But I don't think it was all that clear cut as you make it out to be at the time.

Eoin, you are handed a warrant to search my house on the 20th of April.

You have seven days, inclusive of the 20th of April, to do it.

Can you search my house on the 27th of April?

It really was this simple. It might be hard to accept that someone we trust to conduct a criminal investigation could make that sort of mistake, but that's what happened.

Boombastic

Old and grey wrote: »

One: He was convicted of nothing,nada!
Two: He always claimed that others had access to his computer.

Of course if you have evidence other than that in the public domain then by all means share it.

I never said he was convicted, please quote were I did...what others had access to his computer because sources I've checked say he claims it was a virus, if you have more info, please share

My name is URL

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not standing up for the man, but is calling him a paedophile when he hasn't been convicted of a crime defamatory?

It's not really. He got off on a technicality but afaik even he doesn't dispute that he was found in possession of child pornography.

He's definitely not a paedophile though... wink-wink.

goose2005

My name is URL wrote: »

He got off on a technicality.

that's not all he got off on

imagine his big chubby face, huffing and puffing as he pulls the lad off him. What a great little country.

April O Neill

homerjay2005 wrote: »

what was the technicality?

The search warrant was out of date. :mad:

NoQuarter

wil wrote: »

Why would a judge rule that a relatively minor technicality took precedence over a serious accusation?
Didn't the accused also have the right to address the accusations properly and justly in court and prove his innocence not leave under a cloud?
Why are technicalities often the sole basis for cases being thrown out.

Why is it not libellous of the paper to describe him as "disgraced"

Its not minor, its actually a huge technicality. If the judge had ruled the warrant as ok, it sets a precedent for the future which says that defective warrants are ok. That in turn puts any of us at the whims of the Garda's sloppiness. When dealing with peoples constitutional rights, the courts have to act so strictly. Sure this time it was a judge who got off, but we are all subject to those rules and if dodgey warrants were ok, a lot more innocent people could potentially be locked up and there would be lots of rights breaches of ordinary citizens.

The accused does not have to prove their innocence, its for the DPP to prove guilt. A person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

As above, technicalities are important. It is important that the Gardai do things right when it comes to persons liberty. The rules of evidence apply equally to judges and ordinary citizens.

There is no libel, only defamation now and to defame someone you need to lower their reputation in the eyes of others. Saying someone is disgraced doesnt lower their reputation, it's merely a comment on the circumstances.

WilyCoyote

It's getting close to pitchfork and shillelagh time. Or is that against the law?