Prosecuted for receiving something unwanted and deleteing.

Always Tired

I don't know which is worse, our police force or our journalists. Why aren't they going after the guy who sent the video? And what kind of idiot writes that article and doesnt ask that, considering it's all about the "questions raised" by the case?

Seems to me what happened was that she was being investigated for fraud, and she is an asylum seeker. Some people think that a lot of asylum seekers are frauds. It wouldn't surprise me if the gardai have a few people of that opinion amongst their ranks. I've often noticed that those who are in court here that have African sounding names get harsh sentences from judges as well. Despite the fact they almost always plead guilty.

It seems they searched her home, determined to get her on something, and found this. They had it out for her for some reason. They couldnt get her on the fraud thing so they did her for something else. When they take a dislike to someone, they will try to nail them for anything they can.

Of course, it should be noted that 'her chosen field of work is childcare' so you cant be too cautious with something like this. Though I thought asylum seekers werent allowed to work (though this is also changing I believe). Anyway she obviously isn't associating with upstanding pillars of society, and the article says she was trafficked, so I wonder is she still associating with people involved in that to receive something like a child rape video.

As an aside, if I was sent something I wouldn't report it. Have you ever reported something to the guards? they basically interrogate you first, you get treated, at best, like a pain in their backside, at worst, like you are the prime suspect in whatever crime you are reporting.

And if it was something on your phone, you'd have to hand it over to them to search through for weeks. Who wants that?

Mod
Pls tone down these anti - AGS rants

Peregrinus

Always Tired wrote: »

I don't know which is worse, our police force or our journalists. Why aren't they going after the guy who sent the video?

Maybe they are. What makes you assume they aren't?

Always Tired wrote: »

And what kind of idiot writes that article and doesnt ask that, considering it's all about the "questions raised" by the case?

It's a court report, AT. It reports what happened in court. For reasons which I dare say you can work out for yourself, the guards do not publicise in the trial of person A what steps they are taking to investigate person B. And there's not likely to be much point in asking them to.

Dodge

coylemj wrote: »

Can you elaborate - what did I say that you find fault with?

What I said was that if you delete the WhatsApp message, it offers to delete the associated media file. And you have to untick the option to retain the image or video file. So you cannot claim that the file was retained without your knowledge.

Others have answered but just in case others are unsure. Here’s what happens on iPhone with default WhatsApp settings

1) message with media is received.
2) to delete, select media and the option will say ‘delete for me’ (if you send it you have the option ‘delete for everyone too’)
3) message is deleted from WhatsApp

meanwhile the media has also been saved, automatically, in your photos folder. You can’t delete that from WhatsApp. Unless you go separately into the photos, it will stay there

I wasn’t posting as a defence for anyone. Just pointing out that different phones and operating systems exist and your detailed explanation may not how things happened

Always Tired

Always Tired wrote: »

It seems they searched her home, determined to get her on something, and found this. They had it out for her for some reason. They couldnt get her on the fraud thing so they did her for something else. When they take a dislike to someone, they will try to nail them for anything they can.

Do you suggest that Gardai ignore criminal activity?
Just because they investigate one type of crime does not mean they are blind to other crimes. In fact legislation allows for gardai to seize all evidence relating to any crimes while they are searching.

I would also suggest, that child pornography is a worse crime then fraud, imo.

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

I think the logic is that when they have a search warrant, they can search and/or seize anything in the house. Otherwise, a criminal could claim that all of the electronic gear in the house was owned by his partner and children and then the cops couldn't touch them. Which, in this day and age, would render a search warrant useless.

No.

Most legislation provides for seizure of anything that the Gardai reasonably believe is evidence of or relating to the commission of an offence captured by the legislation pursuant to which the warrant was granted. Not "anything in the house".

A Theft & Fraud Act 2001 warrant also allows the Gardai to operate any computer at the place being searched, to cause it to be operated, and to require log in information to be provided to them.

coylemj

Always Tired wrote: »

I don't know which is worse, our police force or our journalists. Why aren't they going after the guy who sent the video?

Clearly you were so determined to have a go at the cops overcome by your sense of outrage that you didn't read as far as the last paragraph of the article.....


Garda Killian Leyden said that the adult in the video has since been identified as a man in Michigan, US, and has been convicted.

Always Tired wrote: »

And what kind of idiot writes that article and doesnt ask that, considering it's all about the "questions raised" by the case?

Even if the facts outlined above had not been disclosed, any 'questions raised' by the case cannot be tackled by a court reporter.

ArmaniJeanss

coylemj wrote: »

Clearly you were so determined to have a go at the cops overcome by your sense of outrage that you didn't read as far as the last paragraph of the article.....


Garda Killian Leyden said that the adult in the video has since been identified as a man in Michigan, US, and has been convicted.

The poster asked about the sender of the video, not the person in it.
The bit at the end of the article refers to the person in it.
No indication they are the same person as the sender, though possible.

coylemj

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The poster asked about the sender of the video, not the person in it.
The bit at the end of the article refers to the person in it.
No indication they are the same person as the sender, though possible.

Agreed. Though as the lady deleted the original WhatsApp message, it was probably impossible (even for the FBI) to trace where it came from.

But I doubt if there ever was a 'sender'. Because she could have claimed that it arrived on her phone in a WhatsApp message so she'd have the defence of being a passive victim. But she could just as easily have deliberately downloaded it herself from a website.

If you're claiming that the file was dropped into your phone storage by the actions of another person, why would you plead guilty to the crime of 'knowingly' being in posession of child pornography? Her version of events doesn't stack up.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

coylemj wrote: »

Agreed. Though as the lady deleted the original WhatsApp message, it was probably impossible (even for the FBI) to trace where it came from.

But I doubt if there ever was a 'sender'. Because she could have claimed that it arrived on her phone in a WhatsApp message so she'd have the defence of being a passive victim. But she could just as easily have deliberately downloaded it herself from a website.

If you're claiming that the file was dropped into your phone storage by the actions of another person, why would you plead guilty to the crime of 'knowingly' being in posession of child pornography? Her version of events doesn't stack up.

Those were some useful, albeit spurious and unfounded, assertions. Are you aware of how the criminal justice system works in this country? Usually evidence is required for conclusions to be drawn.

coylemj

Kallie Billions Connection wrote: »

Those were some useful, albeit spurious and unfounded, assertions.

They are not assertions, it's called speculation.

Kallie Billions Connection wrote: »

Are you aware of how the criminal justice system works in this country? Usually evidence is required for conclusions to be drawn.

I am drawing no 'conclusions'. And I know how the system works. The case is over, it's not sub judice. She put up an implausible defence and pleaded guilty so I can speculate all I like. But thanks for your expert guidance anyway.

joeguevara

coylemj wrote: »

They are not assertions, it's called speculation.



I am drawing no 'conclusions'. And I know how the system works. The case is over, it's not sub judice. She put up an implausible defence and pleaded guilty so I can speculate all I like. But thanks for your expert guidance anyway.

It would have been very damaging if her defence was accepted. It would have opened the floodgates for a ‘how to’ defence if followed what was stated. I’m not saying she was genuine or not but looking at the facts and could have followed.

donspeekinglesh

Article in The Journal about this today. Includes an interview with her SC, who shows he doesn't understand WhatsApp.

https://jrnl.ie/4993190

Surely this is the way to sort out the criminal gangs in Dublin Drogheda and Longford?

Somebody send them some paedo porn.

Tell Gardai who will raid them and forensically examine their phones. It will be there somewhere.

Thats four years.

If it gets suspended, just do it again, they're repeat offenders so they'll get four years inside.


{ok, thats tongue in cheek. I think the problem here is that the lady pleaded guilty, and I have questions about the quality of her legal advice}

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

It would have been very damaging if her defence was accepted.....

And your precedent would be Denning's "appalling vista" judgement.

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

Agreed. Though as the lady deleted the original WhatsApp message, it was probably impossible (even for the FBI) to trace where it came from.

But I doubt if there ever was a 'sender'. Because she could have claimed that it arrived on her phone in a WhatsApp message so she'd have the defence of being a passive victim. But she could just as easily have deliberately downloaded it herself from a website.

If you're claiming that the file was dropped into your phone storage by the actions of another person, why would you plead guilty to the crime of 'knowingly' being in posession of child pornography? Her version of events doesn't stack up.

Newspapers have reported that the sender was located in Michigan and isjailed in the USA. Not clear if it was for this message or whether had had been doing this on a wider scale.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And your precedent would be Denning's "appalling vista" judgement.

What? Do you know the Judgment in question at all?

coylemj

Deleted User wrote: »

Newspapers have reported that the sender was located in Michigan and isjailed in the USA. Not clear if it was for this message or whether had had been doing this on a wider scale.

I made the same claim in an earlier post but was corrected by this poster.....

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The poster asked about the sender of the video, not the person in it.
The bit at the end of the article refers to the person in it.
No indication they are the same person as the sender, though possible.

The news report in the Irish Times (linked in the OP) has this in the final paragraph, underlining by me.........


Garda Killian Leyden said that the adult in the video has since been identified as a man in Michigan, US, and has been convicted.

coylemj

I find this case very puzzling.

The woman had a legal team lead by a SC and she pleaded guilty to 'knowingly' being in possession of child pornography.

Yet the judge (Judge Pauline Codd, Dublin Circuit Court) said that she .....

was the innocent recipient of a video which began innocuously and featured a man and a toddler.

and she (the judge) further stated that ....

the “disturbing” video showed the rape of a two-year-old child but that the woman had innocently received it.

And given that the woman claimed that she had deleted it, why did she plead guilty?

joeguevara

coylemj wrote: »

I find this case very puzzling.

The woman had a legal team lead by a SC and she pleaded guilty to 'knowingly' being in possession of child pornography.

Yet the judge (Judge Pauline Codd, Dublin Circuit Court) said that she .....

was the innocent recipient of a video which began innocuously and featured a man and a toddler.

and she (the judge) further stated that ....

the “disturbing” video showed the rape of a two-year-old child but that the woman had innocently received it.

And given that the woman claimed that she had deleted it, why did she plead guilty?

Because receiving something innocently and knowingly possessing it are two completely different things.

For example if someone dropped a gun through your letterbox without your knowledge, then you innocently received it and you would be guilty of no crime. But if you then kept it and didn’t dispose properly you would be guilty of knowingly possessing it.

So in this case, although initially it was received innocently, the fact it was not deleted and remained on her phone meant an offence was committed.

What we obviously aren’t privy to is did she access it, how many times it was played, was it moved etc. They would be the things that would go to satisfying the evidential burden. The fact that she was so well represented and pleaded guilty appears to suggest that she indeed knowingly possess it. If she thought reasonably that she deleted it and it went into an archive that wouldn’t be seen, never played and never accessed then it would be likely hat the DPP wouldn’t have brought the case to court.

coylemj

joeguevara wrote: »

So in this case, although initially it was received innocently, the fact it was not deleted and remained on her phone meant an offence was committed.

Only if she was aware that the file was still on her phone.

joeguevara wrote: »

The fact that she was so well represented and pleaded guilty appears to suggest that she indeed knowingly possess it.

Agreed.

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

Only if she was aware that the file was still on her phone.

The evidence. which I have not seen contradicted, is that the lady has deleted it and as far as she knew believed it was gone.


Its significant that the prosecutor requested that the phone itself be destroyed on the grounds that it was virtually impossible to conclusively delete anything..

Discodog

Deleted User wrote: »

The evidence. which I have not seen contradicted, is that the lady has deleted it and as far as she knew believed it was gone.


Its significant that the prosecutor requested that the phone itself be destroyed on the grounds that it was virtually impossible to conclusively delete anything..

Wouldn't that prevent any appeal ? Surely evidence has to be held for a period of time ?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Is there a duty to properly dispose of illegal objects or images?

Discodog wrote: »

Wouldn't that prevent any appeal ? Surely evidence has to be held for a period of time ?

If you plead guilty I don't believe it is possible to appeal based on the evidence but instead only on points of law.

Discodog

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Is there a duty to properly dispose of illegal objects or images?



If you plead guilty I don't believe it is possible to appeal based on the evidence but instead only on points of law.

So what happens if you suspect wrongdoing & want your phone assessed by your own expert ?

GerardKeating

Discodog wrote: »

Wouldn't that prevent any appeal ? Surely evidence has to be held for a period of time ?

Discodog wrote: »

So what happens if you suspect wrongdoing & want your phone assessed by your own expert ?

But she has admitted to the crime, what wrong doing might she suspect ?

Discodog

GerardKeating wrote: »

But she has admitted to the crime, what wrong doing might she suspect ?

A lot of people have admitted to things they didn't do

GerardKeating

GerardKeating wrote: »

But she has admitted to the crime, what wrong doing might she suspect ?

Pleading guilty is her mistake, whether done on advice or by her own sense of right.


This seems like a case that could have gone all the way to the supreme court.


She seems to have been convicted of a crime over which she had no control or involvement in its commission, particularly now that the prosecution has admitted that complete deletion cannot be assured.


It would have been different if there had been a pattern of such images or evidence it had been viewed multiple times etc as that might have shown mens rea, but any evidence appears to show the opposite.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Discodog wrote: »

A lot of people have admitted to things they didn't do

There's complex rules about bringing new evidence in an appeal.

I don't think you can bring new evidence that you decided not to check first time round.

Discodog

Deleted User wrote: »

Pleading guilty is her mistake, whether done on advice or by her own sense of right.


This seems like a case that could have gone all the way to the supreme court.


She seems to have been convicted of a crime over which she had no control or involvement in its commission, particularly now that the prosecution has admitted that complete deletion cannot be assured.


It would have been different if there had been a pattern of such images or evidence it had been viewed multiple times etc as that might have shown mens rea, but any evidence appears to show the opposite.

History has shown that it can be for many reasons including pressure & fear.

Discodog

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

There's complex rules about bringing new evidence in an appeal.

I don't think you can bring new evidence that you decided not to check first time round.

I suspect that she relied on her solicitor.