Ian Bailey loses action v. State.

Roger Hassenforder

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-loses-high-court-case-over-garda-conduct-in-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-investigation-1.2158576

Thank f**k.

crazygeryy

Oh we can talk about this one can we?

Booooorrrrrrrriiiinnnngggggg.

Richard tea

Im actually shocked he lost

valoren

The Gardai.

A grand bunch of lads.

The Backwards Man

The only characters missing from that case are The One-Armed Man and the transgender DEA agent.

My name is URL

How much are the legal costs going to be for that case? A couple of million anyway surely. Bailey won't be the one paying it in any case.

Richard tea wrote: »

Im actually shocked he lost

Really? His witnesses were all over the shop. Marie Farrell came across as a loon and his other witness was a drug addict

Never really looked like he stood a chance imo.

Larbre34

Richard tea wrote: »

Im actually shocked he lost

Why?

All the alleged corruption and bizarre goings on were alleged and dramatised through him.

His court action was vexatious and an exercise in obfuscation. He has polluted the process so much at this stage it will never go any further, but im very pleased he will be saddled with many millions of euro in costs.

seamus

Richard tea wrote: »

Im actually shocked he lost

It's all about how the media present the "facts". As Bailey's a journalist, many parts of the Irish media tend to be more sympathetic to his side.

Great week for the Gardai though, two high-profile successes.

My name is URL

Larbre34 wrote: »

im very pleased he will be saddled with many millions of euro in costs.

How exactly is he going to be the one saddled with it? Do you think he has millions to spare on paying costs? Not a chance. It'll be coming out of the public purse.

EndaHonesty

Bailey's "witnesses" were very believable people. Not.

Yellowblackbird

My name is URL wrote: »

How exactly is he going to be the one saddled with it? Do you think he has millions to spare on paying costs? Not a chance. It'll be coming out of the public purse.

His legal team would have been looking for bits of payments along the way and/or be aware of assets he has they can get their teeth into.
Nobodies going to do such protracted and costly work for free.

My name is URL

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

His legal team would have been looking for bits of payments along the way and/or be aware of assets he has they can get their teeth into.
Nobodies going to do such protracted and costly work for free.

His legal team, which more than likely only makes up a tiny percentage of the overall costs.

The legal teams of the Gardai and State have to be paid too, and I guarantee he won't be the one coughing up for that.

The matter of costs was adjourned to a later date. It's a very safe bet that the public are going to be the ones paying the vast majority of it.

Red Alert

He should be pursued for the lot.

Hitchens

gets extra popcorn

Arsemageddon

seamus wrote: »

Great week for the Gardai though, two high-profile successes.

How this case can be seen as a success for the Gardaí is beyond me.

Sophie Tuscan de Plantier's killer has never been caught, primarily due to the utter incompetence of the original Garda investigation. The Gardaí based most of their case against Bailey on the ramblings of an unhinged loon like Ms.Farrell.

The Gardaí (and by extension, the state) got off the hook.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/ian-bailey-case-what-the-jury-wasn-t-told-1.2158925

Yellowblackbird

My name is URL wrote: »

His legal team, which more than likely only makes up a tiny percentage of the overall costs.

What do you mean by tiny?

kneemos

Nothing like the odd corruption allegation to keep them honest.

Santa Cruz

Richard tea wrote: »

Im actually shocked he lost

A Dublin jury couldn't find in his favour. Depending on the self centred attention seeking loony didn't help.
And remember in a civil case you find on the balance of probability not like a criminal case where it is beyond reasonable doubt. Not one jury member found for him after listening to 64 days of evidence. So the few on this site who read the reports in the Star can just accept that most if not all of Baileys case was of no substance

delahuntv

Great case to follow and been part of many discussions with those who have friends / family in the legal arena.

There's no doubt that the gardai made errors and only loked at Ian Bailey as a suspect and disregarded others, however, the consensus is the Ian Bailey himself made it look like he was involved in order to get publicity and hopefully write articles or even a book on the case.

The problem is he took it too far and created enough false info to make it look like he was a prime suspect and then when he started back tracking, he found that the "witness" his choose (Ms farrell), was a little too much of a walter mitty character and it looked like he was trying to get her to withdraw evidence under duress, thus making him seem more guilty.


There's no doubt he is not guilty and the gardai should have started to look at alternatives earlier. the prime suspect is now dead, so possibly the real story will never get told.


But for Ian Bailey - he took a gamble to revitalise his career and earn some money again, but he went too far and he now lives with the consequences.


From what I know, he has very littlein the way of assets and his legal teams were hoping for a big state payout and they will be at a big loss. The state's fees will probably be put against Ian bailey, but as his assets are few, they won't be paid and the taxpayer will bear the cost. Though I doubt if its anywhere near as high as its reported. (just like drug busts, the highest possible charge / price is always quoted, but this rarely resembles the real end cost/price which is substantially lower)

seamus

Arsemageddon wrote: »

How this case can be seen as a success for the Gardaí is beyond me.

Erm...because they won it?

If they lost, this one had McBrearty written all over it again.

Funny you linked that Times article. It's very clear there's a strong bias in favour of Ian Bailey in some publications.

Incompetence is one thing - you'd pretty much be happy to accept that 20 years ago the Gardai were a bit of a ramshackle force, especially out in the sticks.

But outright corruption and framing for murder is something that's never tolerated.

A jury seems to disagree with much of the media's analysis that a fellow journalist was the subject of a witchhunt and framed by Gardai. I think I know whose judgement I'd trust.

Arsemageddon

seamus wrote: »

.

A jury seems to disagree with much of the media's analysis that a fellow journalist was the subject of a witchhunt and framed by Gardai. I think I know whose judgement I'd trust.

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

HeidiHeidi

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

You make THAT sounds like a conspiracy!

If it's statute barred, it's statute barred. Not much anyone can do about (or for) that.

Little CuChulainn

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

What evidence was "statute barred"?

HeidiHeidi

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What evidence was "statute barred"?

After the evidence concluded, the judge ruled many of the claims were statute barred or not actionable. He ruled the ultimate issue left for the jury to decide was whether there was a conspiracy by some gardai to implicate Mr Bailey in the murder.

From here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/ian-bailey-loses-high-court-case-over-garda-conduct-in-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-investigation-1.2158576

ETA - and according to that, evidence was given in every part of the case brought by Bailey, so jurors heard all the evidence.

Larbre34

My name is URL wrote: »

How exactly is he going to be the one saddled with it? Do you think he has millions to spare on paying costs? Not a chance. It'll be coming out of the public purse.

Yes quite.

I mean he cannot seek to profit from the events.

Little CuChulainn

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

From here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/ian-bailey-loses-high-court-case-over-garda-conduct-in-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-investigation-1.2158576

After the evidence was concluded. So they heard all the evidence. None of it was "statute barred".

HeidiHeidi

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

After the evidence was concluded. So they heard all the evidence. None of it was "statute barred".

Yep, I had edited my post to that effect.

Bogger77

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

They heard all the testimony, the throwing out of the majority of his claims, only happened at the end.

Says a lot about his legal skills, he's been training as a solicitor in the last few years, that he brought those statute barred claims.

But by the testimony given under oath, he's an admitted "wife beater", a lovely man!

If he had sense, he'd have choose his witnesses better, and his barrister, will says a lot that Bailey went with him.

Arsemageddon

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

You make THAT sounds like a conspiracy!

If it's statute barred, it's statute barred. Not much anyone can do about (or for) that.

I don't think it was a conspiracy involving the judge. That much of the evidence was statute barred meant that the jury were not able to assess much of the evidence for what happened prior to 2001.

Larbre34

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

Not handy, just simply the law, a law that existed long before these events.

It would make you wonder how a crack team of legal advisors, tied up with this pro bono case for months and years, did not catch on to this provision a lot earlier, say 8 years or so earlier...

Bogger77

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I don't think it was a conspiracy involving the judge. That much of the evidence was statute barred meant that the jury were not able to assess much of the evidence for what happened prior to 2001.

more like a mistake or worse, by his legal team in bringing those claims.

if he'd gone with plain conspiracy, it'd been cheaper, shorter and less of his dark side would have been shown, and a better chance he'd have gotten sympathy from the jury.

HeidiHeidi

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I don't think it was a conspiracy involving the judge.

I honestly don't understand what point you're making.

The judge ruled that the statute barred rules applied - they either do or they don't.

The Gardai had nothing to do with the timing of the case.

Ian Bailey brought the case, the timing (either on purpose or accidentally) was up to him, and he brought a lot of the claims to court too late.

Anyway, evidence was heard in any case on all his claims, before they were dismissed.

So what's your point?

conorh91

Can Philip Boucher Hayes now be demoted to janitorial duties? That man should never cover court hearings again.

Arsemageddon

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I honestly don't understand what point you're making.

The judge ruled that the statute barred rules applied - they either do or they don't.

The Gardai had nothing to do with the timing of the case.

Ian Bailey brought the case, the timing (either on purpose or accidentally) was up to him, and he brought a lot of the claims to court too late.

Anyway, evidence was heard in any case on all his claims, before they were dismissed.

So what's your point?

My point is quite a simple one. The jury were not allowed assess much of the most pertinent evidence in the case. The states move at the end to have the case thrown out should surely have been done at the start.

Whatever, anyone thinks of Bailey (and I'm pretty sure that very few have a good opinion of him) I think this is very bad day for the Irish criminal justice system.

My name is URL

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

What do you mean by tiny?

I mean that as a percentage of the overall costs, that his legal team's are going to make up a very small part of it =/

I'm not sure where the confusion lies! He ain't gonna be the one paying most of the costs.

HeidiHeidi

Arsemageddon wrote: »

My point is quite a simple one. The jury were not allowed assess much of the most pertinent evidence in the case. The states move at the end to have the case thrown out should surely have been done at the start.

Whatever, anyone thinks of Bailey (and I'm pretty sure that very few have a good opinion of him) I think this is very bad day for the Irish criminal justice system.

But they did hear evidence on all of Bailey's claims (see the report I linked above, it's from a reputable newspaper so I've no reason to doubt it, if you can provide a contrary source then please do.)

So on the one hand you're claiming that evidence wasn't heard, when it was.

Then you say that the claim to have the case thrown out at the end - after all the evidence was heard - should have been done at the start - meaning no evidence (or less) would have been heard.

I'm geniuinely confused!

Yellowblackbird

What do you mean by tiny?

Harry Palmr

For me this murder case is right up there (down there) with that of Father Niall Molloy as far as the states incompetency/negligence goes

Arsemageddon

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

But they did hear evidence on all of Bailey's claims (see the report I linked above, it's from a reputable newspaper so I've no reason to doubt it, if you can provide a contrary source then please do.)

So on the one hand you're claiming that evidence wasn't heard, when it was.

Then you say that the claim to have the case thrown out at the end - after all the evidence was heard - should have been done at the start - meaning no evidence (or less) would have been heard.

I'm geniuinely confused!

The evidence was heard, but then just before the jury went out to deliberate the state argued that the statute of limitations applied to much of the evidence, therefore the jury were not allowed to use that evidence in their deliberations.

Why this didn't happen at the start of the case? I genuinely have no idea. But it seems like a sneaky move to me.

Big C

If it's statute barred, why did they bother, did someone wake up today and say "sh*t never thought of the seven year rule"

HeidiHeidi

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The evidence was heard, but then just before the jury went out to deliberate the state argued that the statute of limitations applied to much of the evidence, therefore the jury were not allowed to use that evidence in their deliberations.

Why this didn't happen at the start of the case? I genuinely have no idea.

I have no idea either. It's puzzling alright.

But the judge ruled that the statute of limitations applied to Ian Bailey's claims, not just the evidence, so the whole lot was ruled out.

The jury deliberated on just two claims in the end, and had all the evidence relating to those claims at their disposal for deliberation.

castletownman

He has probably made more waves in the media on the back of this than he ever made as an actual journalist.

The irony of it

Corholio

Bailey was misjudged on taking the case like this when the obvious chance of them using the time limit rule was always there, and they played their hand pretty late but effective. There was not enough stonewall evidence on the other counts either in terms of it being judicial, despite it's obviousness. People are being harsh on Bailey too I feel, locally this was a very divisive case amongst everyone involved. But it was well known the Gardai had Bailey as the figure of their witch hunt and pushed and scraped for anything that could pin him to the wall, but in the end failed on all counts of the investigation. They handled the whole thing outrageously bad, from trying to pin it to Bailey to their handling of the crime scene, witnesses etc.

Bailey's past worked against him no doubt, and the obsession some have with costs having to be paid by the 'taxpayer', cost of trial etc etc will also cast negative on Bailey's attempts in this case. The system here was always going to work against Bailey rather than towards him and I'm surprised he didn't foresee that, but when you look at the lengths the Gardai went to (some of which was known locally and didn't come to court) Bailey paid an unfair price for just being a suspect.

tayto lover

Arsemageddon wrote: »

My point is quite a simple one. The jury were not allowed assess much of the most pertinent evidence in the case. The states move at the end to have the case thrown out should surely have been done at the start.

Whatever, anyone thinks of Bailey (and I'm pretty sure that very few have a good opinion of him) I think this is very bad day for the Irish criminal justice system.

It's certainly a bad day for Bailey, his legal team and the lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf BUT it's a good day for justice. The jury saw to that thankfully.

Arsemageddon

tayto lover wrote: »

It's certainly a bad day for Bailey, his legal team and the lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf BUT it's a good day for justice. The jury saw to that thankfully.

The lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf also happened to be the lunatics whose evidence the Gardai based their case on.

HeidiHeidi

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf also happened to be the lunatics whose evidence the Gardai based their case on.

That's what Ian Bailey alleged.

The jury (and judge) begged to disagree with him.

tayto lover

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf also happened to be the lunatics whose evidence the Gardai based their case on.

The garda interviewed all who came forward it seems. They didn't go out and select them themselves as Bailey tried to imply. The jury saw through it.

ThisRegard

Larbre34 wrote: »

Not handy, just simply the law, a law that existed long before these events.

It would make you wonder how a crack team of legal advisors, tied up with this pro bono case for months and years, did not catch on to this provision a lot earlier, say 8 years or so earlier...

Arsemageddon wrote: »

My point is quite a simple one. The jury were not allowed assess much of the most pertinent evidence in the case. The states move at the end to have the case thrown out should surely have been done at the start.

Whatever, anyone thinks of Bailey (and I'm pretty sure that very few have a good opinion of him) I think this is very bad day for the Irish criminal justice system.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Why this didn't happen at the start of the case? I genuinely have no idea. But it seems like a sneaky move to me.

The state did alert to the fact at an early stage but it was probably in their interest to have it heard anyway.

Full Marx

Awfully convenient that almost all his claims were statute barred despite the case and the results of his mistreatment being ongoing (still a suspect, arrest warrant etc)


Nothing to see here, move along

Full Marx

tayto lover wrote: »

The garda interviewed all who came forward it seems. They didn't go out and select them themselves as Bailey tried to imply. The jury saw through it.

The Jury did not get to do anything, the claims were thrown out in the absence of the Jury as he decided they were statute barred.

HeidiHeidi

Full Marx wrote: »

Awfully convenient that almost all his claims were statute barred despite the case and the results of his mistreatment being ongoing (still a suspect, arrest warrant etc)


Nothing to see here, move along

But that's surely his (and/or his legal team's) problem, no?

The State only defended themselves of what they were accused of. Which, while I don't know the exact details, was clearly things that happened before a date in 2001, which was 6 years before he started proceedings.

He and his team knew the rules. Or you'd hope they did anyway.