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

Homophobic graffiti on The George

Options
  • 02-02-2018 6:07pm
    #1
    Ten of Swords
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,283 CMod ✭✭✭✭


    Original thread from last May was locked.

    The man accused of drawing a swastika and homophobic slurs on The George was found not guilty today.

    According to the article he allegedly admitted in Garda custody that he had done it but because the Sergent who authorized his detention when he was arrested could not attend court and the initial complainant (manager of The George at the time) no longer works there and the current manager was present instead the case against him was thrown out.

    The Journal

    Moderator: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender, Vegan & Vegetarian

    Category Moderator: Social & Fun



Comments

  • Options
    #2
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,288 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Don't see why the manager of the George would take on the role of the complainant and not the owner whether that's a private or a business owner.


  • Options
    #3
    Heebie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,302 ✭✭✭Heebie


    AllForIt wrote: »
    Don't see why the manager of the George would take on the role of the complainant and not the owner whether that's a private or a business owner.

    A guess would be corporate ownership who probably don't give a flying fig about whether or not someone offends us gays. It's owned by a company that owns a lot of other bars/clubs/restaurants etc., so to them the clientèle at the George are a means to make a profit. That doesn't mean they care about that clientèle.

    I don't know any of them personally, and hopefully am wrong in my assumptions about them... but it would make some sense.


  • Options
    #4
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,068 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    AllForIt wrote: »
    Don't see why the manager of the George would take on the role of the complainant and not the owner whether that's a private or a business owner.
    It;s not the complainant's role that he was to fill; it was the witness's role.

    To get a conviction you have to prove the elements of the offence, starting with the actual facts. In this case, it would be necessary to prove that, e.g., a swastika and homophobic slurs were chalked on the George. That requires evidence from a witness who saw them. The current manage of the George wasn't there at at the time, so didn't see the graffiti, so couldn't give the necessary evidence. The confession of the accused would provide the necessary evidence if it was lawfully obtained by the Guards - if unlawfully obtained, confessions are generally excluded - but the Guard who could give the evidence necessary to show that the confession was lawfully obtained was not present to give the evidence.

    So, basically, prosecution stuff-up. Failed to arrange attendance of witnesses whose evidence was required to secure a conviction, so the result is an acquittal.


  • Options
    #5
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It;s not the complainant's role that he was to fill; it was the witness's role.

    To get a conviction you have to prove the elements of the offence, starting with the actual facts. In this case, it would be necessary to prove that, e.g., a swastika and homophobic slurs were chalked on the George. That requires evidence from a witness who saw them. The current manage of the George wasn't there at at the time, so didn't see the graffiti, so couldn't give the necessary evidence. The confession of the accused would provide the necessary evidence if it was lawfully obtained by the Guards - if unlawfully obtained, confessions are generally excluded - but the Guard who could give the evidence necessary to show that the confession was lawfully obtained was not present to give the evidence.

    So, basically, prosecution stuff-up. Failed to arrange attendance of witnesses whose evidence was required to secure a conviction, so the result is an acquittal.

    Was it the DPP leading the prosecution?


  • Options
    #6
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,068 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    c.p.w.g.w wrote: »
    Was it the DPP leading the prosecution?
    I don't think so, minor matters like this are prosecuted by the guards. But you might get a better-informed answer if you post a query in the "legal discussion" forum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    Remember the lad that was charged for this, he was acquitted because the charge sheet had the wrong name (sigh!!!). He has just pleaded guilty to three charges of rape.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0723/980540-eoin-berkeley-courts-rape/

    And people tried to defend it as no big deal at the time.


  • Options
    #8
    JupiterKid
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    Lux23 wrote: »
    Remember the lad that was charged for this, he was acquitted because the charge sheet had the wrong name (sigh!!!). He has just pleaded guilty to three charges of rape.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0723/980540-eoin-berkeley-courts-rape/

    And people tried to defend it as no big deal at the time.


    Horrible to hear. Its like the "broken window theory" of criminality. One minor inftaction can lead much bigger, more serious stuff.


Advertisement