Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Ian Bailey loses action v. State.

24567…14

Comments

  • #32
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 33,615 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    I don't think it was a conspiracy involving the judge.

    I honestly don't understand what point you're making.

    The judge ruled that the statute barred rules applied - they either do or they don't.

    The Gardai had nothing to do with the timing of the case.

    Ian Bailey brought the case, the timing (either on purpose or accidentally) was up to him, and he brought a lot of the claims to court too late.

    Anyway, evidence was heard in any case on all his claims, before they were dismissed.

    So what's your point? :confused:


  • #33
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Can Philip Boucher Hayes now be demoted to janitorial duties? That man should never cover court hearings again.


  • #34
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    HeidiHeidi wrote: »
    I honestly don't understand what point you're making.

    The judge ruled that the statute barred rules applied - they either do or they don't.

    The Gardai had nothing to do with the timing of the case.

    Ian Bailey brought the case, the timing (either on purpose or accidentally) was up to him, and he brought a lot of the claims to court too late.

    Anyway, evidence was heard in any case on all his claims, before they were dismissed.

    So what's your point? :confused:

    My point is quite a simple one. The jury were not allowed assess much of the most pertinent evidence in the case. The states move at the end to have the case thrown out should surely have been done at the start.

    Whatever, anyone thinks of Bailey (and I'm pretty sure that very few have a good opinion of him) I think this is very bad day for the Irish criminal justice system.


  • #35
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,626 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Yellowblackbird wrote: »
    What do you mean by tiny?

    I mean that as a percentage of the overall costs, that his legal team's are going to make up a very small part of it =/

    I'm not sure where the confusion lies! He ain't gonna be the one paying most of the costs.


  • #36
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 33,615 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    My point is quite a simple one. The jury were not allowed assess much of the most pertinent evidence in the case. The states move at the end to have the case thrown out should surely have been done at the start.

    Whatever, anyone thinks of Bailey (and I'm pretty sure that very few have a good opinion of him) I think this is very bad day for the Irish criminal justice system.

    But they did hear evidence on all of Bailey's claims :confused: (see the report I linked above, it's from a reputable newspaper so I've no reason to doubt it, if you can provide a contrary source then please do.)

    So on the one hand you're claiming that evidence wasn't heard, when it was.

    Then you say that the claim to have the case thrown out at the end - after all the evidence was heard - should have been done at the start - meaning no evidence (or less) would have been heard.

    I'm geniuinely confused!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Yellowblackbird
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 603 ✭✭✭Yellowblackbird


    What do you mean by tiny?


  • #38
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,059 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    For me this murder case is right up there (down there) with that of Father Niall Molloy as far as the states incompetency/negligence goes


  • #39
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    HeidiHeidi wrote: »
    But they did hear evidence on all of Bailey's claims :confused: (see the report I linked above, it's from a reputable newspaper so I've no reason to doubt it, if you can provide a contrary source then please do.)

    So on the one hand you're claiming that evidence wasn't heard, when it was.

    Then you say that the claim to have the case thrown out at the end - after all the evidence was heard - should have been done at the start - meaning no evidence (or less) would have been heard.

    I'm geniuinely confused!

    The evidence was heard, but then just before the jury went out to deliberate the state argued that the statute of limitations applied to much of the evidence, therefore the jury were not allowed to use that evidence in their deliberations.

    Why this didn't happen at the start of the case? I genuinely have no idea. But it seems like a sneaky move to me.


  • #40
    Big C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 943 ✭✭✭Big C


    If it's statute barred, why did they bother, did someone wake up today and say "sh*t never thought of the seven year rule"


  • #41
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 33,615 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    The evidence was heard, but then just before the jury went out to deliberate the state argued that the statute of limitations applied to much of the evidence, therefore the jury were not allowed to use that evidence in their deliberations.

    Why this didn't happen at the start of the case? I genuinely have no idea.

    I have no idea either. It's puzzling alright.

    But the judge ruled that the statute of limitations applied to Ian Bailey's claims, not just the evidence, so the whole lot was ruled out.

    The jury deliberated on just two claims in the end, and had all the evidence relating to those claims at their disposal for deliberation.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    castletownman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,249 ✭✭✭✭castletownman


    He has probably made more waves in the media on the back of this than he ever made as an actual journalist.

    The irony of it


  • #43
    Corholio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,014 ✭✭✭✭Corholio


    Bailey was misjudged on taking the case like this when the obvious chance of them using the time limit rule was always there, and they played their hand pretty late but effective. There was not enough stonewall evidence on the other counts either in terms of it being judicial, despite it's obviousness. People are being harsh on Bailey too I feel, locally this was a very divisive case amongst everyone involved. But it was well known the Gardai had Bailey as the figure of their witch hunt and pushed and scraped for anything that could pin him to the wall, but in the end failed on all counts of the investigation. They handled the whole thing outrageously bad, from trying to pin it to Bailey to their handling of the crime scene, witnesses etc.

    Bailey's past worked against him no doubt, and the obsession some have with costs having to be paid by the 'taxpayer', cost of trial etc etc will also cast negative on Bailey's attempts in this case. The system here was always going to work against Bailey rather than towards him and I'm surprised he didn't foresee that, but when you look at the lengths the Gardai went to (some of which was known locally and didn't come to court) Bailey paid an unfair price for just being a suspect.


  • #44
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    My point is quite a simple one. The jury were not allowed assess much of the most pertinent evidence in the case. The states move at the end to have the case thrown out should surely have been done at the start.

    Whatever, anyone thinks of Bailey (and I'm pretty sure that very few have a good opinion of him) I think this is very bad day for the Irish criminal justice system.

    It's certainly a bad day for Bailey, his legal team and the lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf BUT it's a good day for justice. The jury saw to that thankfully.


  • #45
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    tayto lover wrote: »
    It's certainly a bad day for Bailey, his legal team and the lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf BUT it's a good day for justice. The jury saw to that thankfully.

    The lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf also happened to be the lunatics whose evidence the Gardai based their case on.


  • #46
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 33,615 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    The lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf also happened to be the lunatics whose evidence the Gardai based their case on.

    That's what Ian Bailey alleged.

    The jury (and judge) begged to disagree with him.


  • #47
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    The lunatics who gave evidence on his behalf also happened to be the lunatics whose evidence the Gardai based their case on.

    The garda interviewed all who came forward it seems. They didn't go out and select them themselves as Bailey tried to imply. The jury saw through it.


  • #48
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    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...
    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    My point is quite a simple one. The jury were not allowed assess much of the most pertinent evidence in the case. The states move at the end to have the case thrown out should surely have been done at the start.

    Whatever, anyone thinks of Bailey (and I'm pretty sure that very few have a good opinion of him) I think this is very bad day for the Irish criminal justice system.
    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    Why this didn't happen at the start of the case? I genuinely have no idea. But it seems like a sneaky move to me.

    The state did alert to the fact at an early stage but it was probably in their interest to have it heard anyway.


  • #49
    Full Marx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 666 ✭✭✭Full Marx


    Awfully convenient that almost all his claims were statute barred despite the case and the results of his mistreatment being ongoing (still a suspect, arrest warrant etc)


    Nothing to see here, move along


  • #50
    Full Marx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 666 ✭✭✭Full Marx


    tayto lover wrote: »
    The garda interviewed all who came forward it seems. They didn't go out and select them themselves as Bailey tried to imply. The jury saw through it.

    The Jury did not get to do anything, the claims were thrown out in the absence of the Jury as he decided they were statute barred.


  • #51
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 33,615 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    Full Marx wrote: »
    Awfully convenient that almost all his claims were statute barred despite the case and the results of his mistreatment being ongoing (still a suspect, arrest warrant etc)


    Nothing to see here, move along

    But that's surely his (and/or his legal team's) problem, no?

    The State only defended themselves of what they were accused of. Which, while I don't know the exact details, was clearly things that happened before a date in 2001, which was 6 years before he started proceedings.

    He and his team knew the rules. Or you'd hope they did anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Full Marx wrote: »
    The Jury did not get to do anything, the claims were thrown out in the absence of the Jury as he decided they were statute barred.

    They didn't really have to but found against Bailey on the two issues put to them. I feel that they would have found this way anyway.
    Bailey and his team relied too heavily on a village bicycle and an ex-British Army drug addict crusty. Was never going to win.


  • #53
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,626 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    The state did alert to the fact at an early stage but it was probably in their interest to have it heard anyway.

    Was that reported anywhere? I can't see any mention of it in the press, and you'd imagine it would have been quite a big development at the time it was mentioned.


  • #54
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Was that reported anywhere? I can't see any mention of it in the press, and you'd imagine it would have been quite a big development at the time it was mentioned.

    Discussed in detail on the last word earlier. Cooper asked pretty much the same thing, why didn't anyone flag the statute barred issues and one of the guys said on the panel said they were.


  • #55
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    HeidiHeidi wrote: »
    That's what Ian Bailey alleged.

    The jury (and judge) begged to disagree with him.
    tayto lover wrote: »
    The garda interviewed all who came forward it seems. They didn't go out and select them themselves as Bailey tried to imply. The jury saw through it.

    Farrell was the chief Garda witness against Bailey.

    Martin Graham's evidence was statute barred. (Photographic evidence of Gardaí handing him a huge block of hash)

    Testimony from the State solicitor for Cork (hardly a lunatic) that Gardaí were putting pressure on him and the DPP to prosecute Bailey was also statute barred.

    The 44 page memo from the DPP's office demolishing the Garda case against Bailey was also not heard/viewed in any substantive detail by the jury.


  • #56
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    Farrell was the chief Garda witness against Bailey.

    Martin Graham's evidence was statute barred. (Photographic evidence of Gardaí handing him a huge block of hash)

    Testimony from the State solicitor for Cork (hardly a lunatic) that Gardaí were putting pressure on him and the DPP to prosecute Bailey was also statute barred.

    The 44 page memo from the DPP's office demolishing the Garda case against Bailey was also not heard/viewed in any substantive detail by the jury.

    There is no doubt that there were poor Garda errors in this case and I believe Bailey to be innocent (he did endeavour to be treated as a suspect though).
    That does not mean that the Garda tried to frame him and I don't believe they did. That was the nub of Bailey's claim.


  • #57
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Was that reported anywhere? I can't see any mention of it in the press, and you'd imagine it would have been quite a big development at the time it was mentioned.

    It gets a mention in the Irish Times and the reasons for them hearing the evidence out
    The State said the law allowed it make the statute point at any stage of the case, it had pleaded it from the start but needed to hear all of the evidence before making it, and allegations made against several senior gardaí were “of the gravest nature” and they were entitled to publicly deny them.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/judge-ruled-only-central-claim-of-conspiracy-could-be-considered-1.2158876


  • #58
    airuser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭airuser


    Yes, we as tax payers will pick up the Bill.

    Bailey's Solicitor was doing it Pro Bono not sure about the 1 SC and the 2 or 3 JC. Again possibly the State also.


  • #59
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 33,615 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    Farrell was the chief Garda witness against Bailey.

    Martin Graham's evidence was statute barred. (Photographic evidence of Gardaí handing him a huge block of hash)

    Testimony from the State solicitor for Cork (hardly a lunatic) that Gardaí were putting pressure on him and the DPP to prosecute Bailey was also statute barred.

    The 44 page memo from the DPP's office demolishing the Garda case against Bailey was also not heard/viewed in any substantive detail by the jury.

    But surely either

    a)the evidence that was ruled out (due to the claims being ruled statute barred) was only relevant to those claims that were ruled out - or if it was of wider relevance

    b)Bailey's team didn't use that evidence/testimony as evidence in the claims that eventually survived the judge's ruling?

    Bailey's team put the case together. If relevant evidence got ruled out then surely it's down to them?


  • #60
    liamos43
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭liamos43


    A poster to this thread stated the prime suspect in this murder was now deceased. Is this something new in the arena or has it always been there?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    liamos43 wrote: »
    A poster to this thread stated the prime suspect in this murder was now deceased. Is this something new in the arena or has it always been there?

    It'd be "new" given that the Gardai still officially regard Bailey as a "person of interest".


Advertisement
Advertisement