nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Regency Hotel shooting trial collapses following Detective Superintendent's suicide

fonesmasher1

How could this happen? DSi Colm Fox was the lead investigator when he shot himself in Ballymun station. Surely his successor could try and pick up the case?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

buried

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Good theory, hardly a huge conspiracy like we have been told.

Just a cock up.

Ahhh yeah just another cock up after the 50,000 other ones to go along with it, no problem

PingTing comes for Fire

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I can’t understand how the Garda aren’t allowed ask each other if they recognize Mr X from a photo??

If they do it will collapse a trial??

Like in a station they cant ask in front of other garda is that Mr X.

Madness.

Before a trial ever begins the prosecution must disclose to the defense all the evidence that it will use. This would include the written statements of the various gardai who identified the accused. One such statement might involve cop 1 saying that on a particular day somebody handed him a photo and said 'recognise anyone?' and he immediately recognised a man who he had known for a number of years and had dealings with i.e the accused. And that identification was noted.

According the speculation in the previous posts the theory being that mobile phone messages and emails might contradict that statement as to how and when cop1 came to see the photo and what might have been said to him in advance.

That's just a theory mind but that would be the logic of how a case could fall on even such a small discrepency like the id.

STB.

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

They accepted the two detective's ID, the court case stalled after the DS's suicide. Obviously something involved with that came to light and the DPP felt they couldn't continue with the prosecution. Wouldn't speculate anything beyond that at this point.

No. The case stalled after request for and the trawl through thousands of emails, and the narrowing down to four named members of Gardai, and finally the disclosure by the prosecution of the emails between four gardaí.

jon1981

Fair to say the hutch solicitor was on his A game here in pursuing this tactic to collapse the trial?

kippy

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Gardai, Army, Housing, Health, Justice System, Politics are all a joke in this country.

My mam has pestered me for 8 months now that my own son is born, to get out of here quick. I fear she may be right more and more every day

The grass is always greener......

Macdarack

Flat cap Murray seemed to be easily recognised in the photo after the shooting, I know he died from an illness but how was he not in custody following the murder, was he in hiding?

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I can’t understand how the Garda aren’t allowed ask each other if they recognize Mr X from a photo??

If they do it will collapse a trial??

Like in a station they cant ask in front of other garda is that Mr X.

Madness.

If they want to use such an identification as the sole evidence to get a warrant, or a charge, or an extension to an initial detention for questioning, the identification has to be corroborated by another Garda in order to be considered enough evidence to proceed with warrant-requiring enquiries.

If this process was compromised by intentionally leading eachother or prompting eachother, then any warrants or questioning acquired on the basis of this evidence would become illegal and therefore inadmissible in court.

Wombatman

The gardaí were conspicuously absent on the day of the Regency shooting. There where journos all over the place, almost expecting something to go down. I think the emails under review may contain damning info as to why the gardaí were "stood down" on the day.

jon1981

Wombatman wrote: »

The gardaí were conspicuously absent on the day of the Regency shooting. There where journos all over the place, almost expecting something to go down. I think the emails under review may contain damning info as to why the gardaí were "stood down" on the day.

Ah here!

Franz Von Peppercorn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I suspect the allegation is that it was done on purpose, that they intentionally tried to build an illegitimate case against him a la Ian Bailey.

I’m finding that hard to believe. Can you definitely point to any point in the case where the judges threw that evidence out.

Franz Von Peppercorn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If they want to use such an identification as the sole evidence to get a warrant, or a charge, or an extension to an initial detention for questioning, the identification has to be corroborated by another Garda in order to be considered enough evidence to proceed with warrant-requiring enquiries.

If this process was compromised by intentionally leading eachother or prompting eachother, then any warrants or questioning acquired on the basis of this evidence would become illegal and therefore inadmissible in court.

Are you sure that applies to photos? Are you saying that every cop has to shut up about a person in a photo until they are taken into seperate rooms for a seperate debrief. Even if the photos were online.

What you are describing seems more related to how lineups are handled with non police witnesses.

STB.

Macdarack wrote: »

Flat cap Murray seemed to be easily recognised in the photo after the shooting, I know he died from an illness but how was he not in custody following the murder, was he in hiding?

He was arrested and in custody in Northern Ireland in September 2016 on foot of a European Arrest Warrant which also sought his extradition to ROI.

He got bail in late January 2017 as it was revealed he had motor neuron disease. A NI judge stopped the extradition in May when it transpired that the suspect was dying. He died a few months later in August.

buried

This is what you get after continuous decades of total absolute cluster **** ups concerning the realm of "Justice". Nobody believes what anyone is saying. Great for selling trash papers and news broadcasts. Not so f**king great for whats left of a supposedly 'civil society' now is it?

dundalkfc10

partyguinness wrote: »

Really...so why did she come back if it so rubbish in Ireland.

Did she actually live there for a decent period of time or was just a travelling thing.

She left at 17 many years ago when she fell pregnant first (ran away basically so her parents wouldn’t make her get rid) and returned in 1990 when getting a good job in Dundalk.

It’s a horrible country to live in. I live with my girlfriend both earning 30,000 (I work every Sat aswell overtime to reach 30,000) with 1 kid. We have less disposable income than our neighbours who neither have a job, HAP pay there house, free childcare, free prams etc off the social etc...

Then you see scum like this clown laughing at us after murdering someone as he walks free

hatrickpatrick

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m finding that hard to believe. Can you definitely point to any point in the case where the judges threw that evidence out.

Judge Brian Curtin walked free because a warrant used to search his house was out of date, even though they did find the evidence they were looking for. The courts take these procedural matters extremely seriously.

Dante7

It's not just a procedural cock-up. If it was simply that, he would have been immediately rearrested. The DPP requested that a nolle prosequi be entered. This allows for an accused to be rearrested and charged again. However, it is unlikely that Hutch will ever be brought to trial again. The evidence is there, but the revelations will be too unpalatable.

hatrickpatrick

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Are you sure that applies to photos? Are you saying that every cop has to shut up about a person in a photo until they are taken into seperate rooms for a seperate debrief. Even if the photos were online.

What you are describing seems more related to how lineups are handled with non police witnesses.

I think if they're going to go to a judge or the DPP and say "our evidence for requesting a warrant / charge against this person consists solely of this photo identification", it does very strictly have to be two individual Gardaí who have not discussed the photo prior to identifying the accused. Otherwise a garda could stitch up someone I didn't like by asking a colleague to back him or her up on the identification, even though the other person has no idea who's in the photo. You cannot regard the hearsay of one Garda as 'probable cause', probable cause has to be based on more than that, hence the requirement for multiple independent Gardaí to arrive at the same conclusion.

It's to prevent abuse of power and personal vendettas.

EDIT: I think the important point that people are missing is that if any step in the procedure to get a warrant, an extension of custody time to question a person, or a charge, has been corrupted, mishandled or screwed up, then everything which directly follows it becomes inadmissible in court. So for instance if they search my house on foot of a warrant which was obtained using false information, it doesn't matter if they find 50kg of heroin and a sub machine gun under my mattress, all of that is inadmissible in court because the fundamental basis of searching me in the first place was illegitimate. It sounds pedantic, but it's there to ensure that it's harder to frame individuals for things they didn't do.

Here we go

Absolute joke there was a picture on the front of every paper day's after and again today. And they can't prosacute its a joke.

FishOnABike

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Judge Brian Curtin walked free because a warrant used to search his house was out of date, even though they did find the evidence they were looking for. The courts take these procedural matters extremely seriously.

When it suits them.

hatrickpatrick

FishOnABike wrote: »

When it suits them.

In fairness, can you think of a case in which a breaking of rules like this occurred and the case was allowed to use tainted evidence anyway?

Dante7

The GSOC investigation will be a whitewash. They are a toothless organisation. When they tried to raise awareness about how they were being spied on, they were comprehensively put in their place.

wersal gummage

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

EDIT: I think the important point that people are missing is that if any step in the procedure to get a warrant, an extension of custody time to question a person, or a charge, has been corrupted, mishandled or screwed up, then everything which directly follows it becomes inadmissible in court

I understood that the Supreme Court somewhat relaxed that approach with the JC judgement in 2015 when introducing the principle of inadvertence?

Franz Von Peppercorn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Judge Brian Curtin walked free because a warrant used to search his house was out of date, even though they did find the evidence they were looking for. The courts take these procedural matters extremely seriously.

I think we all know the judge there didn’t want to lock up a fellow judge. The warrant wasn’t out of date.

You haven’t proven your point. If two cops are looking at a cctv camera and both see Johnny the Robber on the screen and both recognise him at the same time, are you saying that they then have to remain silent until they are taken to seperate rooms to say it was Johnny the robber.

There’s far more going on here than the Irish judiciary, as incompetent as it is, throwing out a case based on procedural violations. In fact, they didn’t. The state decided to not prosecute.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The Irish times report confirms this.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/photos-were-key-evidence-in-hutch-trial-but-did-not-cause-case-to-collapse-1.3800840?mode=amp

At the bottom.

Michael O’Higgins SC, for Patrick Hutch, mounted legal argument in a bid to stop the photographs being admitted as evidence because the way the images were handled, he claimed, was very poor and marked by no record keeping.

He argued the Hutch family were being linked to the shooting and that the two Garda members knew Patrick Hutch better than other family members. This, he believed, meant it was more likely they would name Patrick Hutch rather than another family member.

However, Mr Justice Tony Hunt, presiding at the three-judge court, ruled the images should be admitted as evidence.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Dante7 wrote: »

The GSOC investigation will be a whitewash. They are a toothless organisation. When they tried to raise awareness about how they were being spied on, they were comprehensively put in their place.

The GSOC need Adrian Dunbar to step up.

Dante7

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The Irish times report confirms this.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/photos-were-key-evidence-in-hutch-trial-but-did-not-cause-case-to-collapse-1.3800840?mode=amp

At the bottom.

Michael O’Higgins SC, for Patrick Hutch, mounted legal argument in a bid to stop the photographs being admitted as evidence because the way the images were handled, he claimed, was very poor and marked by no record keeping.

He argued the Hutch family were being linked to the shooting and that the two Garda members knew Patrick Hutch better than other family members. This, he believed, meant it was more likely they would name Patrick Hutch rather than another family member.

However, Mr Justice Tony Hunt, presiding at the three-judge court, ruled the images should be admitted as evidence.

And then the investigating officer shot himself in the head.

FFS.

branie2

Scandal

FishOnABike

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In fairness, can you think of a case in which a breaking of rules like this occurred and the case was allowed to use tainted evidence anyway?

It may be down to how different judges run their courts but it would appear some can be almost pedantic in their application of court rules / procedures while others are willing to, let's say, take a more flexible approach to the adherence to fundamental rules such as minimum notice or admissibility of evidence.

Judges are people like the rest of us, their personalities can be reflected in how they perform their role. A good legal representative will know an individual judge's form and present their case accordingly.

donkeykong5

Just read thread. I had no idea until now that colm fox shot himself. What a waste of a human life. He wasnt far off retiring either. Feel very sorry for him that he was driven to this. And even more sorry for his family.

sReq | uTeK

Okay, the notes Fox had wrote down are clearly significant these need to be disclosed. More so now if the case has been thrown out.

Also what was found on the confiscated laptop and usb keys after his death. This to me is clearly a case of the DPP guards.not wanting to take this further for fear of something damaging coming out