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

ian bailey extradition

neris

why do the french want ian bailey to go there for the murder in west cork? he was cleared by the courts here of doing but the french seem to think hes guilty or just want to put him on trial there. as the crime didnt happen there what basis do they think they have for getting their hands on him? is it not overstepping the mark on national juristicion and also undermining our legal system if the french were to put him on trial? a guy was acquited in australia for the murder of an irish guy this week but i dont our legal system is chasing the aussies to send him over here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

I didn't try to 'damn them all' as you would like to think. This a classic tactic of yours when defending your colleagues - you hide behind the accusation that people who don't agree with you are trying to 'get at' the Gardai. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case.

MagicSean wrote: »

I wasn't actually referring to your obvious dislike of the Gardaí in general.

There you go again, proving my point exactly.

berrypendel

berrypendel wrote: »

is it online?

possibly both, they could not get the killer but had to seem to be doing the job because of who the victim was.
I read somewhere that she had a relationship with someone, from France i think, and that that man had visited her in Cork. Is it possible they argued? Does anyone know if the garda ever traced him?

http://www.herald.ie/news/sophie-lover-was-murder-suspect-2967713.html

benway

MagicSean wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. But you cannot discount the garda intuition and opinion as nothing.

Intuition based on verifiable facts might count for something. In their absence, it really isn't anything at all. If you are certain that someone is guilty, you should be able to prove it. If you can't, you need to reappraise your intuition rather than keep hammering away.

Seems in this case that the Gardaí looked at Bailey as a ladies man, a slightly odd character, living in the locality, mixing in the same kinds of circles as the victim, put 2 + 2 together and came up with 5. And then ran with their theory despite the lack of any real evidence. Profiling, essentially, which has been shown to be a poor way of running an investigation.

I really would like to know if any other avenues of investigation were seriously explored.

MagicSean wrote: »

A confession to a third party is hardly something they should have ignored though.

When one witness makes and then retracts such a statement, alleging coercion, it raises a question mark over the witness. When a second one does it, it raises a question mark over the investigation. Where there's a third, as there is in this case, it starts to look like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

MagicSean wrote: »

I can't see how the dpp could know that. It is up to the member in charge of a station to decide on whether to detain based on a conversation when the person is brought into custody. How the dpp could know in advance what the contents of this conversation would be is beyond me.

I'm guessing that she was being held as an accessory to a murder based on the presumption that Bailey was guilty. In the absence of any evidence for that proposition, I can't see how it could be used to ground her arrest of a third party as an accessory. I think that this is an opinion that could be reached on principle without reference to the particular facts.

In any event, it seems that the DPP advised against this course, the Gardaí worked ahead, unsurprisingly didn't get a useful statement from her, and I think ended up paying damages to her, not 100% sure of that. Well worth it.

MagicSean wrote: »

On this we disagree. The court does not look at cold hard paper facts. They look at the person giving the evidence as well.

You're right about that, but on the strength of what I know of the evidence in this case, I'd say there was a decent chance that the defense could have successfully applied to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence without it even going to the jury - the case was that weak.

MagicSean wrote: »

How to you communicate something like this on a statement? It's something that i think really needs to be addressed. In a serious investigation there really should be a rep from the dpp involved, even as an observer, from the outset to avoid these issues.

I'm happy enough with the system as it stands - the DPP and the Gardaí have distinct roles, and intermingling would only muddy the waters, raise the prospect of undue Garda influence in the prosecutorial process, and insufficient external oversight of investigations.

Seems to me that the Gardaí are forever looking to have their jobs made easier for them, looking for extra powers and reduced supervision. Personally, I think that better training on information gathering and communications skills coupled with a more professional organisational ethos would be more effective.

MagicSean wrote: »

I would think it would be easier to convince a judge in a case with less physical evidence as they have the benefit of seeing the testimony first hand and can make decisions based on that as opposed to a written statement. The idea that the DPP can work completely free from political pressure is naive but I do agree with you that the Gardaí should have no part in the politics of a case. There should be a line and in this case it would seem it was crossed, although with little effect.

If you agree that the line was crossed, then you must agree that steps must be taken to ensure that those responsible are held accountable. Otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent, reinforcing a culture of perceived impunity. The DPP should operate entirely free of political interference: there's nothing naive about that statement. It's not acceptable that senior Gardaí would even dream of having the Minister pull strings for them.

MagicSean wrote: »

I think most of the issues raised would have been already addressed in the reforms brought in after the mcbrearty incident. i can't see the problem with a public enquiry though.

The way you say the McBrearty "incident", it's like it was an isolated, once-off thing, as if there wasn't a whole culture in the force of cutting corners at best, outright corruption at worst. As if it was confined to a few bad apples in Donegal. It would certainly send a strong message if those responsible for this debacle were publicly held to account, especially the senior members.

I would like to see Ray McAndrew's report on this mess being made public, also.

pirelli

MagicSean wrote: »

It depends on the incident and allegation really. In serious cases or where it is in the interest of the public GSOC will take over the criminal investigation from the start.

In Ian Bailey situation I don't think his extradition would have undermined the Irish legal system. He never had any proceedings brought against him. The allegations raised will probably damage the reputation of the Gardaí but the organisation has changed a lot since then so I don't think it will have any domestic ramifications.

In regards to the allegations raised, I have only read what is in the papers but it seems to be mostly mud slinging to see what stuck. If I understand it right the first witness made a statement and then wished to withdraw it but was "coerced". I haven't read about what this coersion was but I wouldn't be surprised if she was simply told. "If you withdraw your statement you will be prosecuted". I'd like to hear more about this aspect of it though. Was it a case where words were put in her mouth or was it a case of someone who felt bad about shopping someone to the Gardaí and then changed their mind. As to the second witness, this sounds like bullsh1t of the highest order. This guy would appear to have been a desperate junkie. I can't even think where the €5000 would come from to pay him let alone why a garda would consider it worth it to pay this for a conviction.

The organisation has changed but needs a truth and reconciliation process. I know that whilst it may have changed there are serving members that would have been involved in miscarriages of justice from years ago. It would be helpful for society if they were encouraged to resolve such matters by being truthful.

As for the money for testimony, it was a very high profile case and they can make promises without delivering. It is improbable and I would tend to agree with you that it's unlikely scenario, However as Sherlock Holmes always said:“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Subsequently there was an inquiry into the matter and they did find the English witness story more credible and the Garda less credible.

Corruptable

Interesting discussion. While I accept that AGS has changed a great deal since then, the case doesn't inspire confidence. The big question I wonder about is the "why?" this dreadful situation arose. It clearly does no good for AGS, or the State to have such bad PR and what could have been another miscarriage of justice unless there was something personal behind the suspicion.

Surely it's easy for anyone to see that setting your sights on one person as a suspect from a early stage without a large amount of corroborative evidence has a huge potential to end in a miscarriage of justice. It's akin to simply relying on one source for all decisions, which is something I personally would never do in any activity, and certainly not in an investigation where a person's freedom is at stake and there's nothing other than a few unreliable scraps of evidence to support that position.

jonsnow

What I don,t understand is if the DPP were so set against the garda pressure to prosecute bailey (and rightly so it appears) why were they going along with the french extradition request and actually trying to enforce it.Are was it another arm of the state that was handling the case for the government?

Carawaystick

jonsnow wrote: »

What I don,t understand is if the DPP were so set against the garda pressure to prosecute bailey (and rightly so it appears) why were they going along with the french extradition request and actually trying to enforce it.Are was it another arm of the state that was handling the case for the government?

I didn't think the dpp were involved in extradition, more cops and ministry of justice and courts??

Hypotethically, if the alleges criminality by gardaí by trying to influence the dpp, who would prosecute? The dpp is a bit compromised by being the complainant, no?

Would it be the gsoc? or some other arm of state or something else?

ResearchWill

jonsnow wrote: »

What I don,t understand is if the DPP were so set against the garda pressure to prosecute bailey (and rightly so it appears) why were they going along with the french extradition request and actually trying to enforce it.Are was it another arm of the state that was handling the case for the government?

It is the Office of the Chief State Solicitor who acts in such matters for the Minister for Justice. The DPP has no involvement.

censuspro

What I'm curious about is:

On what basis did the High Court sanction the extradition of Ian Bailey?
How do French authorities propose to convict Ian Bailey in absentia when there is clearly no evidence to do so?
What evidence did the French authorities have that led them to believe they could secure an extradition and conviction in France? Surely they would have carried out some preliminary inquiries before they made they request for extradition?

Carawaystick

censuspro wrote: »

What I'm curious about is:

What evidence did the French authorities have that led them to believe they could secure an extradition and conviction in France? Surely they would have carried out some preliminary inquiries before they made they request for extradition?

Well they convinced our High Court about the extradition....

The civil law system in use in France is very different to the system here, it's common practise to lock up suspects for the investigation

berrypendel

benway wrote: »

Nope, but there's a reasonably comprehensive synopsis in today's Indo, may be more details in the Supreme Court judgment when it's delivered:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-dpp-demolished-garda-case-on-bailey-3037829.html

I would hope that it will all come out in the Ombudsman's inquiry.

it is online now

johnnyskeleton

MagicSean wrote: »

pirelli wrote: »

I am not sure but here is a case book example:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1108/1224307207563.html

Usually there is an internal investigation first and if there is criminal elements then that is another matter. Such as in the Gardai that were prosecuted after an investigation by the Garda Ombudsman.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1108/1224307207563.html

The excerpt shows that the prosecution followed the internal investigation! What is unconstitutional or have I worded something incorrectly.

The investigation you quoted was the criminal investigation and not the disciplinary one. In effect it would be like having a civil case before a criminal one. Because the burden of proof in a civil case or disciplinary hearing is much lower than a criminal one the criminal one should be held first to avoid any inferences being drawn from the decisions made using the lower burden of proof.

it should be, but that isn't always the case and there are examples of civil proceedings/investigations in advance of a criminal prosecution. The tribunals are a good example, local authority enforcement proceedings another

Steviewinger

Will he go to France now I wonder ?

171170

Steviewinger wrote: »

Will he go to France now I wonder ?

Has he a choice?

Steviewinger

My question is I wonder if it will go to the supreme court. I see he has since been released on bail

171170

Interesting to see in today's media reports that the legislation under which Bailey's extradition got the go ahead is called the CRIMINAL LAW (EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION) ACT 2019

this legislation is described as

An Act to extend the criminal law of the State to certain conduct engaged in outside the State and in that regard to give effect to certain provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence done at Istanbul on 11 May 2011; for that purpose to amend the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 ; and to provide for related matters.

Looks as though Charlie Flanagan may have slipped the Bailey extradition bit through under the "related matters" provision - what a sly conniving bast@rd he is! Especially given that the murder happened 23 years before the legislation was enacted.

Yet we're told that Lisa Smith can't be prosecuted for terrorism because some piece of EU legislation hasn't yet been enacted. Go figure.

GerardKeating

Would this not be considered respective legislation with respect to the alleged crimes in Ian Bailey?

Also for extradition, does not the same offence have to exist in both juristractions? While murder would exist in both counries. does Ireland also claim the right to prosecute the murder of irish citizens abroad?

GM228

I'm not sure how the 2019 Act is considered a change in legislation to allow his extradition, it does not provide any legislative base for it and it does not take away from the fact that the Supreme Court in 2012 held that there is a jurisdictional bar to his surrender by virtue of S44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 which states:-

A person shall not be surrendered under this Act if the offence specified in the European arrest warrant issued in respect of him or her was committed or is alleged to have been committed in a place other than the issuing state and the act or omission of which the offence consists does not, by virtue of having been committed in a place other than the State, constitute an offence under the law of the State.

I think until S44 is amended the Minister for Justice is estopped from revisiting this ruling.

My understanding is they are trying to use the Extradition (European Convention On Extradition) Order 2019 rather than the 2019 Act as an excuse to revisit the issue, but that itself is also problematic, not least because of the date applicable to the offence and potentially issues surrounding the use of "French Republic" as opposed to "France" in the limitation section of the Order, the last part is a stretch but in the world of litigation it may become an issue.

GM228

GerardKeating wrote: »

Would this not be considered respective legislation with respect to the alleged crimes in Ian Bailey?

Also for extradition, does not the same offence have to exist in both juristractions? While murder would exist in both counries. does Ireland also claim the right to prosecute the murder of irish citizens abroad?

The same offence has to (and does exist) in both states, how they prosecute them though does not have to be the same, in other words both do not have to exercise extra territorial jurisdiction.

cobhguy28

171170 wrote: »

Interesting to see in today's media reports that the legislation under which Bailey's extradition got the go ahead is called the CRIMINAL LAW (EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION) ACT 2019

this legislation is described as

An Act to extend the criminal law of the State to certain conduct engaged in outside the State and in that regard to give effect to certain provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence done at Istanbul on 11 May 2011; for that purpose to amend the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 ; and to provide for related matters.

Looks as though Charlie Flanagan may have slipped the Bailey extradition bit through under the "related matters" provision - what a sly conniving bast@rd he is! Especially given that the murder happened 23 years before the legislation was enacted.

Yet we're told that Lisa Smith can't be prosecuted for terrorism because some piece of EU legislation hasn't yet been enacted. Go figure.

How does this have anything to do with Baileys case.

GM228

cobhguy28 wrote: »

How does this have anything to do with Baileys case.

It doesn't, see the last paragraph of my post two posts up.

FishOnABike

BornToKill wrote: »

Reprimanded first and then their guilt evaluated? Is that even constitutional?

It seems to be in France ;-))

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/a-23-year-investigation-what-next-for-the-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-case-1.4123633

The libel trial also heard from now-deceased Guardian Paris correspondent, Paul Webster that he received a phone call in mid-February 1997 from a man who introduced himself as Ian Bailey and, in the course of the conversation, he said he knew Toscan du Plantier quite well as an acquaintance.

That was just Bailey blowing his mouth off trying to impress the Guardian journalist, probably though it would help with him a story

This IT link also says

In the note Thomas recorded how they were travelling towards Dunmanus after 2pm on December 23rd to check out Cassidy’s report of a murder when they encountered “a non-local woman sitting in a car near the bend and Ian goes to talk with her as she looks lost and we often help people”.

“He says when he got back into the car that it is a French journalist who is over to investigate a murder of a French woman and (he) wondered how she had been so quick to hear the news and get here too,” wrote Ms Thomas before describing how they continued on and met Foster in her car.

I have never heard this before about a french journalist being there. Anyone know about that?

tdf7187

I think it was alleged that Bailey was fitted up because he was (1) an outsider from England (2) viewed as eccentric.

Anyone familiar with the 'Beast of Jersey' case? In Jersey in the 1960s and early 1970s, there had been a bunch of rapes and attempted rapes on teenagers and young adult women. I read the book by Joan Paisnel about the case. She records that some witnesses claimed to have encountered the perp, citing a fella with an Irish accent - the Irish then being recent immigrants to the island. A local eccentric Alphonse Le Gastelois was accused by of being the perp, and went into exile on a neighbouring island.

It turned out that it was a local and respected Jersey man from a family with roots in Jersey for hundreds of years that was responsible - her own husband. I think she comments on his eccentric behaviour which she tolerated behind closed doors, but was genuinely shocked when he turned out to be the perp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Paisnel

I suppose the point I am making and why I think there might be parallels to the Bailey case is that Paisnel wasn't an outsider, and though his wife found him to be eccentric behind closed doors, in public he had a good reputation and was viewed as a sound Jersey man and so on. Le Gastelois, not Paisnel, was viewed as the local eccentric, and it was the former that was falsely accused and fitted-up, basically, before the police discovered damning evidence linking the crimes to Paisnel.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

If Bailey was not liked as they say why was he invited back to people's houses and why would he want to socialise playing music with all the locals who say they did not like him.

It must be strange place where people who do not like people invite them to their homes

chicorytip

tdf7187 wrote: »

I think it was alleged that Bailey was fitted up because he was (1) an outsider from England (2) viewed as eccentric.

Anyone familiar with the 'Beast of Jersey' case? In Jersey in the 1960s and early 1970s, there had been a bunch of rapes and attempted rapes on teenagers and young adult women. I read the book by Joan Paisnel about the case. She records that some witnesses claimed to have encountered the perp, citing a fella with an Irish accent - the Irish then being recent immigrants to the island. A local eccentric Alphonse Le Gastelois was accused by of being the perp, and went into exile on a neighbouring island.

It turned out that it was a local and respected Jersey man from a family with roots in Jersey for hundreds of years that was responsible - her own husband. I think she comments on his eccentric behaviour which she tolerated behind closed doors, but was genuinely shocked when he turned out to be the perp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Paisnel

I suppose the point I am making and why I think there might be parallels to the Bailey case is that Paisnel wasn't an outsider, and though his wife found him to be eccentric behind closed doors, in public he had a good reputation and was viewed as a sound Jersey man and so on. Le Gastelois, not Paisnel, was viewed as the local eccentric, and it was the former that was falsely accused and fitted-up, basically, before the police discovered damning evidence linking the crimes to Paisnel.

I don't think he was "fitted up" at all. I think he did it. There were too many inconsistencies in his and Jules Thomas 'statements to Gardai and others at the time that lead me to believe he was lying. The fact that no forensic evidence linking him to the crime was discovered at the scene is of no major significance. Bear in mind, Sophie's body lay uncovered for almost twelve hours before the alarm was raised and Gardai arrived. The culprit could easily have returned to the scene and removed any incriminating evidence. Bailey's then residence - where he still currently lives - is 2.5 km from the DuPlantier home at Dreenane. In twenty three years not one single new lead or shred of evidence has emerged to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. It must be enormously stressfull for both he and Thomas to maintain this facade of innocence for so long.
Eventually one or the other of them will crack and the truth will emerge.

[Deleted User]

chicorytip wrote: »

I don't think he was "fitted up" at all. I think he did it. There were too many inconsistencies in his and Jules Thomas 'statements to Gardai and others at the time that lead me to believe he was lying. The fact that no forensic evidence linking him to the crime was discovered at the scene is of no major significance. Bear in mind, Sophie's body lay uncovered for almost twelve hours before the alarm was raised and Gardai arrived. The culprit could easily have returned to the scene and removed any incriminating evidence. Bailey's then residence - where he still currently lives - is 2.5 km from the DuPlantier home at Dreenane. In twenty three years not one single new lead or shred of evidence has emerged to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. It must be enormously stressfull for both he and Thomas to maintain this facade of innocence for so long.
Eventually one or the other of them will crack and the truth will emerge.

There was a ton of evidence found including blood and hair. Bailey freely gave DNA samples and there was no match. Apparently there was alien DNA found at the scene according to Bailey when he saw the French evidence.

GerardKeating

chicorytip wrote: »

I don't think he was "fitted up" at all. I think he did it. There were too many inconsistencies in his and Jules Thomas 'statements to Gardai and others at the time that lead me to believe he was lying.

Lying is not proof of anything, reminds me of a quote (admitily fictional) from a TV show.

"Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they didn't do, and the guilty lie because they don't have any other choice."

chicorytip wrote: »

Eventually one or the other of them will crack and the truth will emerge.

If they havent cracked after 20+ yers, they aint going to, either very strong willed or innocent, and sometimes the innocent crack under pressure and admit things they did not do.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

chicorytip wrote: »

I don't think he was "fitted up" at all. I think he did it. There were too many inconsistencies in his and Jules Thomas 'statements to Gardai and others at the time that lead me to believe he was lying. The fact that no forensic evidence linking him to the crime was discovered at the scene is of no major significance. Bear in mind, Sophie's body lay uncovered for almost twelve hours before the alarm was raised and Gardai arrived. The culprit could easily have returned to the scene and removed any incriminating evidence. Bailey's then residence - where he still currently lives - is 2.5 km from the DuPlantier home at Dreenane. In twenty three years not one single new lead or shred of evidence has emerged to link anybody other than Bailey to the killing. It must be enormously stressfull for both he and Thomas to maintain this facade of innocence for so long.
Eventually one or the other of them will crack and the truth will emerge.

How could he go back and clean up without leaving some forensic evidence >if he had left some to clean he would leave some cleaning it.. And he would then freely offer DNA samples after cleaning up. yeah right

There was forensic evidence it did not match Bailey

Carawaystick

Are we allowed say that any english language reportage of the french trial makes me ask whats the francais for kangaroo? or is that O/T