Fitzy and Co may not have to stand trial

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Sean Fitzpatrick,the disgraced former CEO of Anglo Irish Bank and two of his former collegues may never have to stand trial due to legal issue around disclosure, the Circut Criminal Court heard today!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0703/460382-anglo-irish-trial/

What was that song by Christy Moore about one law for the rich and one law for the poor?:mad:

caustic 1

In the words of Cilla, surprise surprise.

Mr Freeze

The whole point of the Anglo tapes release was probably to jeopardise any trial for anyone at the top at Anglo.

Probably.

syklops

Bit of a non-story there. The defence have said the trial may be jeopardised, not the Judge.

Defence lawyer tries to get his client acquitted shocker.

dodderangler

Ordinary man is the song btw.
But this shouldn't be ordinary. How is it I can get done for not having an NCT or tax and see a courtroom but rip the country off and take millions and don't get to see a courtroom???
Fcukin country is a joke!!!!!

mathie

So if someone murders someone else then discloses it does that mean they don't stand trial?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

syklops wrote: »

Bit of a non-story there. The defence have said the trial may be jeopardised, not the Judge.

Defence lawyer tries to get his client acquitted shocker.

Suggest you read the report, the prosecuting counsel agreed that a matter had arisen around disclosure and stated that a pre trial hearing would be needed in front of a judge.
The defence counsel would not be stating that the whole trial was jeopardised if he wasn't pretty sure of his ground, especially since this was a routine hearing in front of a judge, with no jury to grandstand to.

Jimoslimos

Old and grey wrote: »

What was that song by Christy Moore about one law for the rich and one law for the poor?:mad:

Lisdoonvarna?

syklops

Old and grey wrote: »

Suggest you read the report, the prosecuting counsel agreed that a matter had arisen around disclosure and stated that a pre trial hearing would be needed in front of a judge.
The defence counsel would not be stating that the whole trial was jeopardised if he wasn't pretty sure of his ground, especially since this was a routine hearing in front of a judge, with no jury to grandstand to.

When did you ever meet a lawyer who wasnt sure of his ground when speaking in court?

Aglomerado

:mad: <- (doesn't go far enough. Should be steam coming out of ears)

syklops

I think a mod needs to change the title.

"Fitzy and co may not stand trial" is misleading.

The accused's legal teams are looking for certain information which is in the hands of third parties and requested a date be set for a pre-trial disclosure hearing.

Judge Nolan set a date for 26 July and set aside two hours for the hearing.

SEPT 23 1989

Firing squad it is then

Zebra3

syklops wrote: »

I think a mod needs to change the title.

"Fitzy and co may not stand trial" is misleading.

Yeah, maybe "defence lawyer acts in client's interests".

wuzziwig

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Lisdoonvarna?

Ride on?

Cody Pomeray

I don't exactly see why an issue with disclosure would prevent the trial from going ahead at all, seeing as how the prosecution appear to be trying to help in disclosing whatever relevant material is within their possession or remit.

This is the first time that the matter has been raised before the court; so long as the disclosure is met in the interim and until the time when the defence have had time to examine the relevant material, there's no problem.

There are 6 months between today's mention and the commencement of the trial, at worst the material is going to be so extensive as to simply cause an adjournment of the trial.

shedweller

This is starting to look like an awful b movie that is as predictable as hell. We all know they will get away with it. It'll just be slightly amusing how they do it.

I've said it before and i'll say it again: Those psychos that go into schools and assassinate children are doing it all wrong. There's a whole bunch of other people far far more deserving of a few bullets to the head.

syklops

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yeah, maybe "defence lawyer acts in client's interests".

Wish I could thank that twice.

Muckie

Didnt Mary Harney do something similar.

"Accidently" slag off Charlie Haughey, "oh no....now" ive ruined the chance

of him been investigated....ooops.

Like trying to catch a slippery eel...crooked b*stards.