Supreme Court - Graham Dwyer related judgement

Yurt2

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0224/1117195-dwyer-supreme-court/


So it appears that the Supreme Court has kicked for touch on the case as to whether the data retention that formed a large part of the body of evidence against Dwyer was indiscriminate and lacked oversight.

Certain questions will be referred to the court in Luxembourg.

To my understanding, it appears the evidence gathered against him was obtained in good faith by AGS acting on the law as it was at the time, but the legislation underpinning the retention of the data was repugnant to EU law.

Still unlikely to see him at any model airplane jamborees in the wild any time soon, I think there are doubts around if the European court finds in his favour will the judgement be applied retrospectively.

Boggles

No valid reason from what I can read for them not to make the decision.

Fully within their remit as one dissenting Judge stated.

It would have been kicked up to the European Court regardless I imagine.

Have they an estimate on how many cases this could potentially effect?

Yurt2

I can see why they'd be apprehensive about making the judgement themselves. It's not inconcievable that a whole lot of prosecutions pending could be dropped and characters like Dwyer will be sprung from gaol.

Still, that's what they're paid for and ultimately they should be well equipped to make the descision without reference to a European Court. It's the Supreme Court, not the 'Kind-of Supreme Court.'

Tremendous stuff-up to have the oversight regime they had when the likes of Digital Rights Ireland saw the problems with it from very early on.

Raisins

Yurt! wrote: »

I can see why they'd be apprehensive about making the judgement themselves. It's not inconcievable that a whole lot of prosecutions pending could be dropped and characters like Dwyer will be sprung from gaol.

Still, that's what they're paid for and ultimately they should be well equipped to make the descision without reference to a European Court. It's the Supreme Court, not the 'Kind-of Supreme Court.'

Tremendous stuff-up to have the oversight regime they had when the likes of Digital Rights Ireland saw the problems with it from very early on.

Idiotic post. Dwyer won’t be acquitted, JC judgment on unconstitutionally obtained evidence means he’ll never get out even if he wins. This entire challenge is based on a point of EU law. The Supreme Court, as the court of last resort must refer if an EU issue arises, which it does, hence they referred a few questions. It doesn’t undermine the Supreme Court in any way, every member state operates on that basis, unless you’re a brexiteer.

Yurt2

Raisins wrote: »

Idiotic post. Dwyer won’t be acquitted, JC judgment on unconstitutionally obtained evidence means he’ll never get out even if he wins. This entire challenge is based on a point of EU law. The Supreme Court, as the court of last resort must refer if an EU issue arises, which it does, hence they referred a few questions. It doesn’t undermine the Supreme Court in any way, every member state operates on that basis, unless you’re a brexiteer.

Go do one. I never made a prediction he'd be acquitted, merely that it was a possibility if in the act that the law was found to be faulty and it was applied retroactively, which is a possibility, however minor.

So yeah, go take a walk in a coronavirus zone for yourself.

Boggles

Yurt! wrote: »

I can see why they'd be apprehensive about making the judgement themselves. It's not inconcievable that a whole lot of prosecutions pending could be dropped and characters like Dwyer will be sprung from gaol.

That shouldn't be part of the decision process.

The law is either sound or it isn't.

seamus

6 to 1 in favour of pushing it to the EU, so seems fairly strong that the Irish court doesn't have the remit to fully answer this.

Whether it will ultimately result in anything for Dwyer is to be seen.

As mentioned above, the Supreme Court already ruled in 2015 that “from now on, evidence obtained unconstitutionally will be admissible if the prosecution can show the breach was due to inadvertence”.

So even if Dwyer succeeds here, it will be further necessary to prove that the breach of his rights was intentional or otherwise have the evidence declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court. He has nothing to lose, so he'll keep going in that direction.

A retrial in this case would be messy. He will argue that it'll be next to impossible to get a fair trial, and the state will argue that he must not be granted bail.

Yurt2

Boggles wrote: »

That shouldn't be part of the decision process.

The law is either sound or it isn't.

Agreed, the SC are clear on why they are seeing the case, it is to do with discreet matter of law and not on the guilt and innocence of Dwyer.

I, like the other poster, would agree with the dissenting judge however.

Deebles McBeebles

Is this the new 'Boardsies you would bring back' thread?

Boggles

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Is this the new 'Boardsies you would bring back' thread?

Was he????

:eek:

Raisins

Yurt! wrote: »

Go do one. I never made a prediction he'd be acquitted, merely that it was a possibility if in the act that the law was found to be faulty and it was applied retroactively, which is a possibility, however minor.

So yeah, go take a walk in a coronavirus zone for yourself.

“It’s not inconcievable that a whole lot of prosecutions pending could be dropped and characters like Dwyer will be sprung from gaol”

What’s your basis for characters like Dwyer being sprung from gaol so? Why did you infer the SC shouldn’t have referred it?

Hyperbolic drivel.

Yurt2

Raisins wrote: »

“It’s not inconcievable that a whole lot of prosecutions pending could be dropped and characters like Dwyer will be sprung from gaol”

What’s your basis for characters like Dwyer being sprung from gaol so? Why did you infer the SC shouldn’t have referred it?

Hyperbolic drivel.

Like I said, take a holiday in Wuhan. Note my first post, and the word unlikely, then go on Skyscanner and book your flight. I'd say you'll be missed around here, but you really wouldn't.

Bye

Raisins

Yurt! wrote: »

Like I said, take a holiday in Wuhan. Note my first post, and the word unlikely, then go on Skyscanner and book your flight. I'd say you'll be missed around here, but you really wouldn't.

Bye

Where you said the Supreme Court kicked the case to touch? Another piece of daily mail standard legal wisdom.

Start a thread with a load of ignorant scaremongering and criticism of the Supreme Court - then say goodbye when asked a simple question.

Yurt2

Raisins wrote: »

Where you said the Supreme Court kicked the case to touch? Another piece of daily mail standard legal wisdom.

Start a thread with a load of ignorant scaremongering and criticism of the Supreme Court - then say goodbye when asked a simple question.

Very cheap flights at the moment, make sure to have a try of the bat soup. We could organise a whip around for you

JohnnyFlash

Yurt! wrote: »

Like I said, take a holiday in Wuhan. Note my first post, and the word unlikely, then go on Skyscanner and book your flight. I'd say you'll be missed around here, but you really wouldn't.

Bye

You need to chill out, dude. Carrying around a lot of anger. I hear meditation is good for that sort of stuff.

gimli2112

I can't seem to get worked up over murderers having their civil rights abused

Yurt2

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You need to chill out, dude. Carrying around a lot of anger. I hear meditation is good for that sort of stuff.

Can you keep your limp-wristed FG inspired passive-aggresive insults to one thread Johnny?

JohnnyFlash

Yurt! wrote: »

Can you keep your limp-wristed FG inspired passive-aggresive insults to one thread Johnny?

Not an insult, dude. You got debating pie all over your jumper, and went off on one about Wuhan and bat soup. That came from a place of anger - that usually manifests itself as a tightness in the chest, clenching of teeth, unconsciously forming fists with your hands. Meditation is mighty for getting to the root of that sort of thing.

Yurt2

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Not an insult, dude. You got debating pie all over your jumper, and went off on one about Wuhan and bat soup. That came from a place of anger - that usually manifests itself as a tightness in the chest, clenching of teeth, unconsciously forming fists with your hands. Meditation is mighty for getting to the root of that sort of thing.

I'm clocked off work where I am. You're spending what ought to be productive working hours following someone around a message board because you got filleted in another thread.

My blood pressure is fine John boy.

Raisins

Yurt! wrote: »

I'm clocked off work where I am. You're spending what ought to be productive working hours following someone around a message board because you got filleted in another thread.

My blood pressure is fine John boy.

Give us some of your legal wisdom now that you’ve clocked off. Your time is wasted with insults.

As you said “it’s the Supreme Court not the kind of Supreme Court”. Dwyer should get you on his legal team.

TheValeyard

Train wreck thread choo choo

Ush1

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Not an insult, dude. You got debating pie all over your jumper, and went off on one about Wuhan and bat soup. That came from a place of anger - that usually manifests itself as a tightness in the chest, clenching of teeth, unconsciously forming fists with your hands. Meditation is mighty for getting to the root of that sort of thing.

Constipation also a usual feature.

KWAG2019

If only there was a legal affairs forum on Boards.

Yurt2

KWAG2019 wrote: »

If only there was a legal affairs forum on Boards.

Should have known better than to post it in current affairs. You'd get more reasoned debate at a lock-in at 5am.

bazermc

God lord. Now he wants parole while at the same time appealing that sentence. I thought one of the requirements for parole is you have to admit your guilt or is that just in American movies.


https://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/graham-dwyer-seeks-parole-seven-years-after-he-was-jailed-for-murder-of-elaine-ohara/

Gregor Samsa

bazermc wrote: »

God lord. Now he wants parole while at the same time appealing that sentence. I thought one of the requirements for parole is you have to admit your guilt or is that just in American movies.

This is a total non-story.

He's legally entitled to apply for parole after 7 years, so of course he's going to do it. It's guaranteed it will be rejected by the Parole Board, as it is for the first (and second) applications by all prisoners serving life sentences. As a lifer, he'll get to apply every 3 years from now on.

If the Parole Board ever do recommend parole for him (and based on the current averages of the length of time lifers serve in prison, that won't happen until he has at least 18/19 years served), the final decision lies with the Minister for Justice. It's very unlikely that any Minister would approve the parole for such a notorious killer, unless they'd served a very substantial sentence, or somehow managed to show significant remorse (which he clearly has not).

And no, you don't have to admit guilt to apply for or get parole. However "whether the offender has engaged constructively with the prison-based therapeutic services to combat his/her offending behaviour." is one of the criteria considered by the Board.

billybonkers

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/state-set-to-lose-european-court-case-over-graham-dwyer-s-mobile-phone-records-1.4410016

suicide_circus

Yikes

Something wrong with how we use /store electronic data, when a cold blooded murderer can be convicted in part using said data, and the data use could be found to have been used unlawfully.

Rezident

This is exactly the type of EU nonsense populists like Boris use as a reason to leave the EU. Absolutely braindead - not allowed keep data indiscriminately - eh, he was a murderer, and it was used to catch him, that's pretty discriminate, and rightly so.

JustAThought

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Something wrong with how we use /store electronic data, when a cold blooded murderer can be convicted in part using said data, and the data use could be found to have been used unlawfully.

we have the technology to pinpoint someone at the scene of a crime and track gheir
journeys from outer space but the boyos in theor cash for life jobs wearing pantalons and horsehair wigs are stuck on their principles in their 18th century budoirs whinnying on about data and murderers rights and expecting us to trust them when they put their hand on a Bible and promise not to lie..

I wonder if the family of other abducted and murdered children such as Madeline McCann whose possible abductor has now been put at the scene of her crime by his phone records will agree with them too. If it was their child, they’d find a way.

But then again - this is from the likes of men who decide there is one law to protect the public and another law for themselves if they want to go to a politicians golf dinner. Why do we expect anything else?