Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Michael Lowry's home raided by Revenue

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    I can see why you're saying never mind, because it shows you were completely wrong.

    You presumed that the trial couldn't go ahead because of the long vacaction. You repeated that presumption above, saying that the trial was "ill-timed" with the court holidays.

    You're completely wrong. The trial could not go past the 2nd of August because two jurors were going on holidays after that date, and one juror had already been dismissed. It was nothing to do with the long vacation.

    I am not completely wrong at all. Allow me to point out a few matters which I found to be unsatisfactory with this case.
    Posted by Mr.Micro
    The case apparently had to be finished by the 4th August. For I presume, The Court holidays? Why bring such a difficult case to be heard when it may take longer, allowing for illness etc and in a very limited time frame? It does not stand to reason, its not as if the prosecution does not know when the Court is closed for holidays?
    Posted by Cody Pomeray
    No the situation is that there would have been an unreasonable burden on the jury, some of whom had previously warned the court of prior commitments. The circuit court can and does continue hearings that have commenced in the days or weeks running into the vacation.

    An unreasonable burden on the jury? A burden that is self inflicted. So some on the jury are concerned about their holidays and not the job of justice, and there is no pressure then to conclude the case, so long as its done before the 4th August ,lol. As a juror one expects to have to stay for as long as it takes. Would any person want jurors putting more concern into domestic things rather than the trial. Yet the Court allows these as factors to try get the case finished by or before the 4th August? Not acceptable at all IMO. Would you be happy with such members in a jury? Which comes first my holidays or justice?

    The trial was based on matters that happened 20 years ago or so and then only comes to court at the tail end of the court season, the DPP knowing full well that it would be a difficult case. Finally, the DPP relied on a person convicted of corruption as the witness. Its silly season and the chances of winning were low. Not a good day for the DPP on many levels.


  • Options
    #33
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    I am not completely wrong at all. Allow me to point out a few matters which I found to be unsatisfactory with this case.
    'Point out' whatever you want to whomever will give you an audience. I'm stating the fact that the dates for which trial was fixed had nothing to do with the long vacation, as you presumed.
    Finally, the DPP relied on a person convicted of fraud as the witness.
    There would have been no case if it weren't for Frank Dunlop.

    If there was more reliable evidence, the trial could have concluded without Dunlop.


  • Options
    #34
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    'Point out' whatever you want to whomever will give you an audience. I'm stating the fact that the dates for which trial was fixed had nothing to do with the long vacation, as you presumed.

    There would have been no case if it weren't for Frank Dunlop.

    If there was more reliable evidence, the trial could have concluded without Dunlop.

    Don't patronize, and I have no desire for any audience, ( you are the only one responding to me so you are the audience), you appear to be the one continuing to be pedantic, condesending and high handed. Save the personal remarks.

    There was no case then, as Dunlop was the only witness and the DPP should have weighed up the chances of winning, like it does with all cases. It got its sums wrong.


  • Options
    #35
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,342 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    I
    An unreasonable burden on the jury? A burden that is self inflicted. So some on the jury are concerned about their holidays and not the job of justice, and there is no pressure then to conclude the case, so long as its done before the 4th August ,lol. As a juror one expects to have to stay for as long as it takes. Would any person want jurors putting more concern into domestic things rather than the trial. Yet the Court allows these as factors to try get the case finished by or before the 4th August? Not acceptable at all IMO. Would you be happy with such members in a jury? Which comes first my holidays or justice?

    You think its unreasonable of a juror in early July to say "I have a €3K holiday for myself, the husband and the 3 kids to Tenerife booked and paid for from the 8th to 22th August, and I am 100% going on that holiday".
    Seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I wouldn't hold it against that juror in any way. Would actually consider it terribly insulting if I was that juror and read guff about 'putting more concern into domestic things than the job of justice'.


  • Options
    #36
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    You think its unreasonable of a juror in early July to say "I have a €3K holiday for myself, the husband and the 3 kids to Tenerife booked and paid for from the 8th to 22th August, and I am 100% going on that holiday".
    Seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I wouldn't hold it against that juror in any way. Would actually consider it terribly insulting if I was that juror and read guff about 'putting more concern into domestic things than the job of justice'.

    By the same token then do you think that there should be a limit on how long a jury deliberates to reach a verdict? Would anybody want a jury that is not fully concentrated on the case?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,342 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    By the same token then do you think that there should be a limit on how long a jury deliberates to reach a verdict? Would anybody want a jury that is not fully concentrated on the case?

    As far as I know there is a limit; the judge will talk to a split jury regularly to see if there is a possibility of a unanimous verdict, then (s)he'll reduce the requirements to 11-1 or 10-2, but he'll have a rough idea in his head of how long he intends to give before declaring it hung. The jury I was on would likely still be there now (trial was May 2005) if it was unlimited.

    From memory at the start the judge is told by prosecution/defence how long their case will be, and then he adds a bit for his own summing up, and a reasonable jury deliberation. And possibly adds a bit of leeway to the overall figure for unexpected things (maybe one of the legal people can confirm).

    So as you are selected for the juror pool he can then say this trial is a 17 day trial or whatever and you can be excused if you have a medical appointment or big event during this time, and a different juror selected.

    However if the trial goes beyond the estimate I personally don't think its reasonable to keep the jurors 'trapped'.


  • Options
    #38
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    As far as I know there is a limit; the judge will talk to a split jury regularly to see if there is a possibility of a unanimous verdict, then (s)he'll reduce the requirements to 11-1 or 10-2, but he'll have a rough idea in his head of how long he intends to give before declaring it hung. The jury I was on would likely still be there now (trial was May 2005) if it was unlimited.

    From memory at the start the judge is told by prosecution/defence how long their case will be, and then he adds a bit for his own summing up, and a reasonable jury deliberation. And possibly adds a bit of leeway to the overall figure for unexpected things (maybe one of the legal people can confirm).

    So as you are selected for the juror pool he can then say this trial is a 17 day trial or whatever and you can be excused if you have a medical appointment or big event during this time, and a different juror selected.

    However if the trial goes beyond the estimate I personally don't think its reasonable to keep the jurors 'trapped'.

    Fair enough in today's modern times. Jury selection is paramount then, so as to avoid problems if the trial overruns and the jurors come under pressure, to make a decision, and any delays to not impinge on their plans and other commitments.


  • Options
    #39
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,342 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Fair enough in today's modern times. Jury selection is paramount then so as to avoid problems if the trial overruns and the jurors come under pressure to make a decision and any delays to not impinge on their plans and other commitments.

    100% agree, I think the judges in future similar trials need to build in a massive amount of leeway, they aren't normal trials in our system and estimates are likely be wrong.
    There'll be a big trial of an ex banker next summer (you know the one !) and it'll probably be estimated at 3 months. But here I think the judge should excuse anyone from the juror pool who has any planned events in the following 6 months.


  • Options
    #40
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,297 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    take everything wrote: »
    /Wonders what are the government trying to bury.
    When the tapes were released, EK said they wouldn't reopen the Moriarty Tribunal. Says it all.


  • Options
    #41
    golfball37
    Registered Users Posts: 4,585 ✭✭✭golfball37


    Lowry is buddy buddy with the current government and very close to at least 3 cabinest ministers. When the Toaiseach ignored Moriarity he essentially gave tacit approval to Michael Lowry and all his dealings. Standing toe to toe with Dinny in NY only confirmed his shallowness.

    Don't blame Lowry for taking advantage of a stacked deck. Of course his actions over the years have been reprehensible but nothing has been done about him so I don't blame him for continuing.

    What a country


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Twickers
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭Twickers


    Lowry complains about Revenue being "heavy handed" when paying him a visit.
    If all affairs in order, why did he worry about Revenue visiting him ?


  • Options
    #43
    Grab All Association
    Registered Users Posts: 3,917 ✭✭✭Grab All Association


    Thanks to Michael we had Feile in the 90s.


  • Options
    #44
    worded
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭worded


    Chris___ wrote: »
    Thanks to Michael we had Feile in the 90s.

    He fixed the concert


  • Options
    #45
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    The wheels of justice seem to be moving anyway.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/lowry-tax-probe-now-criminal-revenue-29526141.html


    But it is understood their investigators have been in contact with a number of persons who they believe can help them, and are trying to interview those they believe may have relevant material or information or could be potential witnesses in any future court action.


Advertisement