Ian Bailey loses action v. State.

Roger Hassenforder · 30-03-2015 05:00PM #1

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ian-bailey-loses-high-court-case-over-garda-conduct-in-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-investigation-1.2158576

Thank f**k.

crazygeryy · 30-03-2015 05:01PM

Oh we can talk about this one can we?

Booooorrrrrrrriiiinnnngggggg.

Richard tea · 30-03-2015 05:02PM

Im actually shocked he lost

valoren · 30-03-2015 05:03PM

The Gardai.

A grand bunch of lads.

The Backwards Man · 30-03-2015 05:06PM

The only characters missing from that case are The One-Armed Man and the transgender DEA agent.

My name is URL · 30-03-2015 05:06PM

How much are the legal costs going to be for that case? A couple of million anyway surely. Bailey won't be the one paying it in any case.

Richard tea wrote: »

Im actually shocked he lost

Really? His witnesses were all over the shop. Marie Farrell came across as a loon and his other witness was a drug addict

Never really looked like he stood a chance imo.

Larbre34 · 30-03-2015 05:09PM

Richard tea wrote: »

Im actually shocked he lost

Why?

All the alleged corruption and bizarre goings on were alleged and dramatised through him.

His court action was vexatious and an exercise in obfuscation. He has polluted the process so much at this stage it will never go any further, but im very pleased he will be saddled with many millions of euro in costs.

seamus · 30-03-2015 05:09PM

Richard tea wrote: »

Im actually shocked he lost

It's all about how the media present the "facts". As Bailey's a journalist, many parts of the Irish media tend to be more sympathetic to his side.

Great week for the Gardai though, two high-profile successes.

My name is URL · 30-03-2015 05:13PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

im very pleased he will be saddled with many millions of euro in costs.

How exactly is he going to be the one saddled with it? Do you think he has millions to spare on paying costs? Not a chance. It'll be coming out of the public purse.

EndaHonesty · 30-03-2015 05:16PM

Bailey's "witnesses" were very believable people. Not.

Yellowblackbird · 30-03-2015 05:18PM

My name is URL wrote: »

How exactly is he going to be the one saddled with it? Do you think he has millions to spare on paying costs? Not a chance. It'll be coming out of the public purse.

His legal team would have been looking for bits of payments along the way and/or be aware of assets he has they can get their teeth into.
Nobodies going to do such protracted and costly work for free.

My name is URL · 30-03-2015 05:23PM

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

His legal team would have been looking for bits of payments along the way and/or be aware of assets he has they can get their teeth into.
Nobodies going to do such protracted and costly work for free.

His legal team, which more than likely only makes up a tiny percentage of the overall costs.

The legal teams of the Gardai and State have to be paid too, and I guarantee he won't be the one coughing up for that.

The matter of costs was adjourned to a later date. It's a very safe bet that the public are going to be the ones paying the vast majority of it.

Red Alert · 30-03-2015 05:30PM

He should be pursued for the lot.

Hitchens · 30-03-2015 05:34PM

gets extra popcorn

Arsemageddon · 30-03-2015 05:34PM

seamus wrote: »

Great week for the Gardai though, two high-profile successes.

How this case can be seen as a success for the Gardaí is beyond me.

Sophie Tuscan de Plantier's killer has never been caught, primarily due to the utter incompetence of the original Garda investigation. The Gardaí based most of their case against Bailey on the ramblings of an unhinged loon like Ms.Farrell.

The Gardaí (and by extension, the state) got off the hook.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/ian-bailey-case-what-the-jury-wasn-t-told-1.2158925

Yellowblackbird · 30-03-2015 05:37PM

My name is URL wrote: »

His legal team, which more than likely only makes up a tiny percentage of the overall costs.

What do you mean by tiny?

kneemos · 30-03-2015 05:40PM

Nothing like the odd corruption allegation to keep them honest.

Santa Cruz · 30-03-2015 05:45PM

Richard tea wrote: »

Im actually shocked he lost

A Dublin jury couldn't find in his favour. Depending on the self centred attention seeking loony didn't help.
And remember in a civil case you find on the balance of probability not like a criminal case where it is beyond reasonable doubt. Not one jury member found for him after listening to 64 days of evidence. So the few on this site who read the reports in the Star can just accept that most if not all of Baileys case was of no substance

delahuntv · 30-03-2015 05:51PM

Great case to follow and been part of many discussions with those who have friends / family in the legal arena.

There's no doubt that the gardai made errors and only loked at Ian Bailey as a suspect and disregarded others, however, the consensus is the Ian Bailey himself made it look like he was involved in order to get publicity and hopefully write articles or even a book on the case.

The problem is he took it too far and created enough false info to make it look like he was a prime suspect and then when he started back tracking, he found that the "witness" his choose (Ms farrell), was a little too much of a walter mitty character and it looked like he was trying to get her to withdraw evidence under duress, thus making him seem more guilty.

There's no doubt he is not guilty and the gardai should have started to look at alternatives earlier. the prime suspect is now dead, so possibly the real story will never get told.

But for Ian Bailey - he took a gamble to revitalise his career and earn some money again, but he went too far and he now lives with the consequences.

From what I know, he has very littlein the way of assets and his legal teams were hoping for a big state payout and they will be at a big loss. The state's fees will probably be put against Ian bailey, but as his assets are few, they won't be paid and the taxpayer will bear the cost. Though I doubt if its anywhere near as high as its reported. (just like drug busts, the highest possible charge / price is always quoted, but this rarely resembles the real end cost/price which is substantially lower)

seamus · 30-03-2015 05:51PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

How this case can be seen as a success for the Gardaí is beyond me.

Erm...because they won it?

If they lost, this one had McBrearty written all over it again.

Funny you linked that Times article. It's very clear there's a strong bias in favour of Ian Bailey in some publications.

Incompetence is one thing - you'd pretty much be happy to accept that 20 years ago the Gardai were a bit of a ramshackle force, especially out in the sticks.

But outright corruption and framing for murder is something that's never tolerated.

A jury seems to disagree with much of the media's analysis that a fellow journalist was the subject of a witchhunt and framed by Gardai. I think I know whose judgement I'd trust.

Arsemageddon · 30-03-2015 06:01PM

seamus wrote: »

.

A jury seems to disagree with much of the media's analysis that a fellow journalist was the subject of a witchhunt and framed by Gardai. I think I know whose judgement I'd trust.

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

HeidiHeidi · 30-03-2015 06:05PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

You make THAT sounds like a conspiracy!

If it's statute barred, it's statute barred. Not much anyone can do about (or for) that.

Little CuChulainn · 30-03-2015 06:06PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

What evidence was "statute barred"?

HeidiHeidi · 30-03-2015 06:09PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What evidence was "statute barred"?

After the evidence concluded, the judge ruled many of the claims were statute barred or not actionable. He ruled the ultimate issue left for the jury to decide was whether there was a conspiracy by some gardai to implicate Mr Bailey in the murder.

From here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/ian-bailey-loses-high-court-case-over-garda-conduct-in-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-investigation-1.2158576

ETA - and according to that, evidence was given in every part of the case brought by Bailey, so jurors heard all the evidence.

Larbre34 · 30-03-2015 06:09PM

My name is URL wrote: »

How exactly is he going to be the one saddled with it? Do you think he has millions to spare on paying costs? Not a chance. It'll be coming out of the public purse.

Yes quite.

I mean he cannot seek to profit from the events.

Little CuChulainn · 30-03-2015 06:10PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

From here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/ian-bailey-loses-high-court-case-over-garda-conduct-in-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-murder-investigation-1.2158576

After the evidence was concluded. So they heard all the evidence. None of it was "statute barred".

HeidiHeidi · 30-03-2015 06:11PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

After the evidence was concluded. So they heard all the evidence. None of it was "statute barred".

Yep, I had edited my post to that effect.

Bogger77 · 30-03-2015 06:12PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

They heard all the testimony, the throwing out of the majority of his claims, only happened at the end.

Says a lot about his legal skills, he's been training as a solicitor in the last few years, that he brought those statute barred claims.

But by the testimony given under oath, he's an admitted "wife beater", a lovely man!

If he had sense, he'd have choose his witnesses better, and his barrister, will says a lot that Bailey went with him.

Arsemageddon · 30-03-2015 06:12PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

You make THAT sounds like a conspiracy!

If it's statute barred, it's statute barred. Not much anyone can do about (or for) that.

I don't think it was a conspiracy involving the judge. That much of the evidence was statute barred meant that the jury were not able to assess much of the evidence for what happened prior to 2001.

Larbre34 · 30-03-2015 06:13PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The jury weren't allowed hear some of the most crucial evidence as much of it was statute barred. Handy that.

Not handy, just simply the law, a law that existed long before these events.

It would make you wonder how a crack team of legal advisors, tied up with this pro bono case for months and years, did not catch on to this provision a lot earlier, say 8 years or so earlier...

Bogger77 · 30-03-2015 06:14PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I don't think it was a conspiracy involving the judge. That much of the evidence was statute barred meant that the jury were not able to assess much of the evidence for what happened prior to 2001.

more like a mistake or worse, by his legal team in bringing those claims.

if he'd gone with plain conspiracy, it'd been cheaper, shorter and less of his dark side would have been shown, and a better chance he'd have gotten sympathy from the jury.

Ian Bailey loses action v. State.

Comments