Graham Dwyer loses appeal

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120399659#Comment_120399659

The Parole Act is 2019.

That is some sort of annual report from 2006.

Again here is a link to the pertinent part of the act

Decision on parole

27. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Board may make an order that the parole applicant be released on parole (in this Act referred to as a “parole order”), where it is satisfied that—

(a) the parole applicant—

(i) would not, upon being released, present an undue risk to the safety and security of members of the public (including the relevant victim), and

(ii) has been rehabilitated and would, upon being released, be capable of reintegrating into society,

and

(b) it is appropriate in all the circumstances that the parole applicant be released on parole.

(2) The Board shall, in deciding whether to make a parole order in respect of a parole applicant, have regard to—

(a) the nature and gravity of the offence to which the sentence of imprisonment being served by the parole applicant relates,

(b) the sentence of imprisonment concerned and any recommendation of the court that imposed that sentence in relation thereto,

(c) the period of the sentence of imprisonment served by the parole applicant,

(d) any offence of which the parole applicant was convicted other than the offence to which the sentence of imprisonment being served by him or her relates,

(e) the conduct of the parole applicant—

(i) while serving the sentence of imprisonment,

(ii) while previously the subject of a parole order, if any,

(iii) while the subject of a direction under section 2 of the Act of 1960, if any, or

(iv) during a period of temporary release, if any, to which rules under section 2 of the Act of 1960, made before the coming into operation of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act 2003 , applied,

(f) the risk of the parole applicant committing an offence while on parole,

(g) the risk of the parole applicant failing to comply with any conditions attaching to his or her release on parole,

(h) any treatment, education or training the parole applicant has undergone, or programmes he or she has participated in, while serving the sentence of imprisonment,

(i) any report relating to the parole applicant prepared and furnished to the Board pursuant to a direction in that regard under section 13 ,

(j) any meeting with the parole applicant conducted in accordance with procedures determined under section 14 ,

(k) any submissions made by or on behalf of the parole applicant, including any submissions made in relation to a draft decision on parole, in accordance with procedures determined under section 14 ,

(l) any submissions made by or on behalf of the relevant victim in accordance with procedures determined under section 14 , and

(m) any such other matter as the Board considers appropriate.

(3) The Board shall not make a parole order in respect of a parole applicant where—

(a) the release of the parole applicant from prison is prohibited by or under any enactment, whether passed before or after the coming into operation of this section, or

(b) the parole applicant has been charged with, or convicted of, an offence and is in custody pursuant to an order of a court remanding him to appear at a future sitting of a court.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120398501#Comment_120398501

One can only hope

monkeybutter

How do you think they determine if they have been rehabilitated

Remorse admission of guilt etc all part of that are the previous report outlines

The act above is high level, not all the details

monkeybutter

He will be not be in the protection section

Little chance if harm

Run Forest Run

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120395754#Comment_120395754

Possibly 10 years or less.

The average for a life sentence in this country is 17 years I think.

Depends on what sort of risk he is deemed to pose to the public etc.

Larbre34

I'm not so sure he'll see that early of a release. There was a lot of calculated and premeditated actions to this crime, along with the persistent and fetishistic use, or threat of weapons in sexual encounters. Also issues of consent, coercion, abuse etc etc.

I'd say he's looking at a solid 25 to be served before parole becomes a realistic possibility.

Given that his sentence was backdated to begin from October 2013, I'd say he's facing another 15 to 16 years from now.

Could be more too. In the modern era, 11 men have or are serving more than 35 years for the premeditated killing of women with sexual assault elements. Some of those were multiple homicides, but not all.

Man Vs ManUre

I reckon he did not intend for his poor victim to die. He was taking his punishment up a level by leaving her out all night, tied up in the middle of nowhere. But he miscalculated the toll that would take on her, added to the many injuries he had inflicted on her. And when he went back next day to get her she was dead.

I think Dwyer will in be in prison until the day he dies like Geoffrey Evans and John Shaw. No minister for justice will green light his release. Remember that very unusually he's been in prison since the day he was first arrested because the Gardai believe that he is a severe danger to women after reading his diary in which he said his urge to stab and rape random women he passed on the street was getting stronger by the day.

Dial Hard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120399936#Comment_120399936

Me hole. Have you ever actually read any of the detail of their relationship, the text messages they exchanged, etc??? He 100% intended to kill her to satisfy a sexual fetish and spent years grooming her in order to achieve that. She tried to break away from him numerous times and he always managed to reel her back in. He knew exactly what he was doing and to suggest that the entire thing was some kind of accident or sexual misadventure is belittling what he did to her to an offensive degree. Go and give your head a wobble, ffs.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120398915#Comment_120398915

Because unfortunately people like O’Hara tend to attract people who might exploit them.

Hangdogroad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120399936#Comment_120399936

Utter codswallop.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120399500#Comment_120399500

I'll ask you again because you ignored the question the last time: how can a prisoner claim to be rehabilitated if they do not show remorse for the crime they committed?

Run Forest Run

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120399949#Comment_120399949

Yeah, he was as creepy as they come.

Not to mention very cruel and sadistic. That poor woman was already suffering with her own problems, only to be then preyed on by this sick monster. He turns my stomach tbh. I find it hard to look at his face... people like this should just be put down. Not wasting tax payer money and oxygen in a prison cell.

Man Vs ManUre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120400133#Comment_120400133

Well he did either tie her up or handcuff her out there in the Dublin/Wicklow bush, she was alive at the time. And he went back the following morning I think. It’s not that bizarre to think it was just another type of punishment, he just got it wrong thinking she would survive the night. Only he knows and he’s not one for talking.

Run Forest Run

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120400061#Comment_120400061

Yes, they're certainly more vulnerable to abuse.

But to say something was "bound to happen to her" is still a very odd comment. She was unlucky to run into a monster, they are relatively rare in society.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120400154#Comment_120400154

It's not up to a prisoner to claim they have been rehabilitated.

The loss of liberty is part of the rehabilitation, as is the passage of time, length of time served and as specified in the act the prisoners conduct throughout that period.

But since I have tried to explain it to you now several times with a link to the actual law, it's now your turn.

Where does it state in the law that a convict has to show remorse in order to gain parole as you claimed?

Again the parole board assess risk not guilt, that has been done.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120400326#Comment_120400326

There is more to the parole process than just legislation. Quite honestly you are talking through your hoop.

Larbre34

Rest of his days?

I don't see it. I see Malcolm McArthur around Dun Laoghaire the odd time since his release and that was one lad I honestly thought would not see the light of day beyond a high wall ever again. Yet there he is.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120400505#Comment_120400505

Given the turn in tone it's reasonable to suggest you cannot back up your claim.

Again none of this is just my opinion.

In fact families of victims have complained for years that preparators of serious crimes should acknowledge guilt and show remorse before they can be eligible for parole.

Most recently

https://www.newstalk.com/news/its-absolutely-horrific-murderer-brian-kearney-soon-to-be-eligible-for-parole-1423394

Is she talking through her hoop?

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120400267#Comment_120400267

There are no monsters, but I agree with you that she was unlucky

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120400521#Comment_120400521

Shaw will probably die in prison which is a rarity.

He is unable to solve simple problems and has absolutely no apathy for others.

Serial killer 101.

BattleCorp

I think in the context of parole, rehabilitated means that he won't do the crime again, i.e. murder.

I'm not sure what that entails, if it's a pinky swear on his behalf or if prison psychiatrists/psychologists etc. all get to chime in on his 'rehabilitation'.

I've said it before, I'm surprised he was convicted. A cause of death couldn't be established so I would have thought that left room for reasonable doubt. Don't get me wrong, I 100% think he 'dunnit' but I thought without the cause of death a conviction would be difficult.

20 years is the average life sentence here in Ireland. Dwyer will probably do 25 in total. That's my prediction.

Agent Coulson

The Supreme court will hear his appeal this morning.

Jequ0n

Rightly so.

ohnonotgmail

As if by magic the same poster pops in to support a man who has committed violence against women.

Boggles

So the Supreme Court have granted the appeal on the basis of public interest.

Which means they are suitably concerned enough.

It was the law itself deemed incompatible and not the application of it. Which is very interesting.

If the COA are to believed, Dwyer hasn't a chance of getting his conviction vacated.

But others may, any idea how many cases this could potentially apply to?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121622160#Comment_121622160

As I understand it, it's not that there's a whole slew of prisoners waiting for the outcome of this case to see if it provides a basis for their own release. The facts of the Dwyer case surrounding the collection of the phone data and the use that was made of it are fairly unusual; there won't be many convictions depending on similar facts. If there are, they must all predate 2015, because Dwyer's appeal rests on a course of action which, he argues, was improper but whose impropriety was only established in a Supreme Court judgment handed down in 2015. So, unless those cases related to fairly serious crimes attracting long sentences, the people convicted would quite possibly already have been released from prison.

The Dwyer case raises important issues about the admissibility of evidence that has been obtained unlawfully, but where the unlawfulness was not known or recognised at the time. It's of general public importance not so much because there's a slew of convictions waiting to be overturned as because it has implications for the conduct of future investigations and the conduct of future trials. There are questions to which we need clear answers but, whatever the answers, I don't think they are seen as likely to lead to the release of many, or quite possibly any, current prisoners.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121622299#Comment_121622299

As I understand it, it's not that there's a whole slew of prisoners waiting for the outcome of this case to see if it provides a basis for their own release.

Indeed, but that would not mean that some would not apply to get their conviction vacated, especially in cases which were more reliant on mobile phone data.

Oscar_Madison

While the court of appeal found there was other evidence independent of the call data records that was "arguably more compelling", including text messages found on two phones recovered from Vartry Reservoir,

I wonder might the Supreme Court decide that it’s not for the court of appeal to decide if such evidence is compelling or not- and that only a jury can decide that? A possible retrial?

Personally I think that’s a very long shot, but in the interests of justice who knows what they may decide. It would be most unfortunate and very distressing for Elaine’s family if this was to happen.

“There was other evidence to link Dwyer to two phones that formed part of the prosecution case, the CoA also found.”-

-not least his own responses to questions in Garda interviews.

“the data was obtained in compliance with the provisions of the 2011 Communications (Retention of Data) Act but where the Act itself was subsequently found to be inconsistent with EU law.”

Is the key question here for the Supreme Court to answer , if you have a “faulty” law, then convictions under that law should be quashed?

Or is it, if the law is found to be “faulty” (a well known legal term 😀) , is it the role of the Supreme Court then to determine if a miscarriage of justice occurred by assessing the other evidence or is their role simply to state that a retrial is necessary based on a “faulty” law being in place at the time of conviction with no assessment of the other evidence?

https://www.thejournal.ie/graham-dwyer-appeal-supreme-court-6272140-Jan2024/

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120399936#Comment_120399936

was all a terrible accident... he completely changed his method of meeting her from the usual, trackable, method. To a scenario where he told her to leave her car, phone and valuables in one place, so he could me her inconspicuously in another location. Definitely just a terrible accident.