Ian Bailey loses action v. State.

Little CuChulainn · 30-03-2015 07:51PM

If the State had the charges thrown out at the start people would be complaining that they were hiding stuff. Despite what Arsegeddon claims, the jury had all the evidence available to them to consider.

wendell borton · 30-03-2015 07:52PM

I cant see how some are seeing as some sort of success. The murder case is a complete foundering shambles with very unreliable evidence collected. There is something very dodgy about the whole thing that should be look into by the ombudsman.

bun_king · 30-03-2015 07:53PM

seamus wrote: »

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.

when it comes to covering AGS , the vast vast majority of media in this country resemble a ( kneeling ) certain miss lewinsky in the oval office circa 1998

how anyone thinks the media here have sided with anyone bar the gardai is beyond me , endless eulogising is the default possition , they even have a full time press shill in a certain mr williams

tayto lover · 30-03-2015 07:56PM

wendell borton wrote: »

I cant see how some are seeing as some sort of success. The murder case is a complete foundering shambles with very unreliable evidence collected. There is something very dodgy about the whole thing that should be look into by the ombudsman.

It wasn't a success.
It was a failure for Bailey.

The murder case is a separate issue which has not been brought to a conclusion as yet and may never be. I have never heard of any other person being named or interviewed as a suspect. Much of this seems to be down to Bailey who went out of his way to make himself the suspect.

arayess · 30-03-2015 08:04PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

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

this is the most important thing.
Ther gardai messed up big style believing your one - baileys life was ruined as a result. I am genuinely shocked at the verdict.

conorh91 · 30-03-2015 08:08PM

Big C wrote: »

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"

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

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

Bogger77 wrote: »

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.

It is important to note that the limitation of actions is an area of major confusion thanks to its totally haphazard development by the courts and the legislature.

This isn't simply a case of counting six years from the date of the cause of action. Questions arise such as, 'when did the cause of action accrue', which opens a whole other Pandora's Box of issues: when did Ian Bailey discover a flaw in the Garda investigation, as he saw it, or is that even relevant? Did the clock start ticking as soon as the investigation was flawed, even if Ian Bailey was unaware?

Practitioners have been struggling with questions like these for forty years or more, and the rules that have emerged are often confusing and contradictory.

It isn't just a question of arithmetic. If it were, the action would never have progressed.

Nevertheless, it is odd that the State did not advance the point about limitations at an earlier stage.

bun_king · 30-03-2015 08:09PM

arayess wrote: »

this is the most important thing.
Ther gardai messed up big style believing your one - baileys life was ruined as a result. I am genuinely shocked at the verdict.

im shocked too , i can only put it down to the ( despite so much evidence of malpractice ) high regard the public have for AGS , years of conditioning by the media about how wonderful they are engenders an attitude that the guards could not be the ones in the wrong here

Little CuChulainn · 30-03-2015 08:09PM

bun_king wrote: »

when it comes to covering AGS , the vast vast majority of media in this country resemble a ( kneeling ) certain miss lewinsky in the oval office circa 1998

how anyone thinks the media here have sided with anyone bar the gardai is beyond me , endless eulogising is the default possition , they even have a full time press shill in a certain mr williams

The media have run with every story possible in order to make the Gardaí look bad for a number of years. Most of the time they report things inaccurately, either out of malice or incompetence, just for extra bang. From penalty points to GSOC bugging. I even remember the Indo running a story about the new rosters claiming Gardaí were getting about 150 days leave per year. Pure fabrication. Someone mentioned earlier about AGS doing a documentary for good publicity. They are probably right. This is what the force is all about now. Looks over substance. This is what the people demand.

ThisRegard · 30-03-2015 08:25PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Nevertheless, it is odd that the State did not advance the point about limitations at an earlier stage.

They were aware of it from the beginning, see my link to the Times and reference to it being discussed on the Last Word.

Arsemageddon · 30-03-2015 08:34PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

They were aware of it from the beginning, see my link to the Times and reference to it being discussed on the Last Word.

It was mentioned early in the case, but the actual application to the court to have the case statute barred was not lodged until near the very end of the case.

Arsemageddon · 30-03-2015 08:34PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The media have run with every story possible in order to make the Gardaí look bad for a number of years. Most of the time they report things inaccurately, either out of malice or incompetence, just for extra bang. From penalty points to GSOC bugging. I even remember the Indo running a story about the new rosters claiming Gardaí were getting about 150 days leave per year. Pure fabrication. Someone mentioned earlier about AGS doing a documentary for good publicity. They are probably right. This is what the force is all about now. Looks over substance. This is what the people demand.

Yea, having a free press is a bitch

ThisRegard · 30-03-2015 08:35PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

It was mentioned early in the case, but the actual application to the court to have the case statute barred was not lodged until near the very end of the case.

For valid reasons. Bailey's legal team should have picked up on it and ceased that part if they knew from the beginning.

Valetta · 30-03-2015 08:35PM

bun_king wrote: »

im shocked too , i can only put it down to the ( despite so much evidence of malpractice ) high regard the public have for AGS , years of conditioning by the media about how wonderful they are engenders an attitude that the guards could not be the ones in the wrong here

What a highly presumptive, and insulting post.

You are basically saying that the jury paid no heed to the facts and evidence of the case, but just made up their minds on some perceived "conditioning" by the media.

Outrageous claim to make.

Arsemageddon · 30-03-2015 08:42PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

For valid reasons. Bailey's legal team should have picked up on it and ceased that part if they knew from the beginning.

What are the valid reasons for delaying lodging the application until near the end of the case?

bun_king · 30-03-2015 08:48PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The media have run with every story possible in order to make the Gardaí look bad for a number of years. Most of the time they report things inaccurately, either out of malice or incompetence, just for extra bang. From penalty points to GSOC bugging. I even remember the Indo running a story about the new rosters claiming Gardaí were getting about 150 days leave per year. Pure fabrication. Someone mentioned earlier about AGS doing a documentary for good publicity. They are probably right. This is what the force is all about now. Looks over substance. This is what the people demand.

so the penalty points scandal is entirely a media created fiction

mind you dont fall when your getting off the stage

bun_king · 30-03-2015 08:58PM

Valetta wrote: »

What a highly presumptive, and insulting post.

You are basically saying that the jury paid no heed to the facts and evidence of the case, but just made up their minds on some perceived "conditioning" by the media.

Outrageous claim to make.

im saying the media in this country has for decades potrayed AGS as above reproach , taking a critical attitude towards AGS in this country invites accusations of at best not being respectable and at worst potentially a " wrong un "

journalist michael clifford was the only journalist to ask hard probing questions about AGS at the beginning of the penalty points scandal , rte didnt start reporting the scandal in any serious manner for ages and rte reporter paul reynolds was dancing as fast as he could do spin things in a possitive way for commissioner callinan before the smell got too bad and he resigned

the less said about that garda schill ( and his presposterous " the bugs were in a nearby cafe rather than GSCO hq " ) paul williams , the better , that hack owes his entire career to garda leaks but he has repaid the force well with his fawning coverage of the force

Valetta · 30-03-2015 09:00PM

bun_king wrote: »

im saying the media in this country has for decades potrayed AGS as above reproach , taking a critical attitude towards AGS in this country invites accusations of at best not being respectable and at worst potentially a " wrong un "

journalist michael clifford was the only journalist to ask hard probing questions about AGS at the beginning of the penalty points scandal , rte didnt start reporting the scandal in any serious manner for ages and rte reporter paul reynolds was dancing as fast as he could do spin things in a possitive way for commissioner callinan before the smell got too bad and he resigned

the less said about that garda schill ( and his presposterous " the bugs were in a nearby cafe rather than GSCO hq " ) paul williams , the better , that hack owes his entire career to garda leaks but he has repaid the force well with his fawning coverage of the force

How is any of that rant relevant to the jury's decision in this case ?

conorh91 · 30-03-2015 09:04PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

They were aware of it from the beginning

Who are you talking about here?

Clearly both sides were aware the action could arguably be statute barred, but as far as I can see this argument was not canvassed by either side until the hearing was in the late stage.

Laois_Man · 30-03-2015 09:08PM

The fact that they waited 'til the end of proceedings before they applied to get most of the case thrown out of court, thereby leaving him with legal bills of millions instead of hundreds of thousands, is perhaps proof enough that they were out to screw him!!

Valetta · 30-03-2015 09:09PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

The fact that they waited 'til the end of proceedings before they applied to get most of the case thrown out of court, thereby leaving him with legal bills of millions instead of hundreds of thousands, is perhaps proof enough that they were out to screw him!!

Hold on a second. He took the case, not the other way around.

He could have backed off at any stage.

gk5000 · 30-03-2015 09:10PM

How can anyone doubt the wisdom, judgement and decision of the jury?

They have been burried in this since November for zero reward or pay.

What sort of an armchair opinion can know more that them?

My name is URL · 30-03-2015 09:13PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

The fact that they waited 'til the end of proceedings before they applied to get most of the case thrown out of court, thereby leaving him with legal bills of millions instead of hundreds of thousands, is perhaps proof enough that they were out to screw him!!

Not really. As someone already pointed out, some of the claims he made against individuals were very severe, and they had a right to publicly defend themselves.

They wouldn't have been able to do so if the judge had halted proceedings before all the evidence was heard.

Laois_Man · 30-03-2015 09:24PM

Valetta wrote: »

Hold on a second. He took the case, not the other way around.

He could have backed off at any stage.

Completely missing the point

gk5000 wrote: »

How can anyone doubt the wisdom, judgement and decision of the jury?

They have been burried in this since November for zero reward or pay.

What sort of an armchair opinion can know more that them?

We will never know what the jury's opinion was on most of the matters put before them since November for zero reward or pay though.

Laois_Man · 30-03-2015 09:26PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Not really. As someone already pointed out, some of the claims he made against individuals were very severe, and they had a right to publicly defend themselves.

They wouldn't have been able to do so if the judge had halted proceedings before all the evidence was heard.

That's the state's own defense for acting the way it did, not something thought up by someone on here. They have not successfully defended themselves at all if the jury weren't allowed rule on it - so it's farcical!

Valetta · 30-03-2015 09:35PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

Completely missing the point

Missing the point?

Ian Bailey was 100% responsible for whatever legal bill he is left with .
Not the state.
Not the judge.
Not the jury.

Yet you claim that "they" were "out to screw him".

What exactly is the point I'm missing?

bun_king · 30-03-2015 09:38PM

Valetta wrote: »

How is any of that rant relevant to the jury's decision in this case ?

its part of a broader context , broad public opinion views the guards as by default being clean and on the side of right , they will always be given the benefit of the doubt by the average person whenever a light is shown on some of their less than glorious deeds

they tried to stitch up clare daly with a drink driving rap for exposing garda favouratism towards VIP members of society yet many people still think clare daly was the one in the wrong , some on this thread think any negative stories surrounding AGS are media concocted fairytales

baschically , guards have a head start in the public mind when it comes to a showdown between them an a citizen and its due to generations of conditioning

HeidiHeidi · 30-03-2015 09:44PM

bun_king wrote: »

its part of a broader context , broad public opinion views the guards as by default being clean and on the side of right , they will always be given the benefit of the doubt by the average person whenever a light is shown on some of their less than glorious deeds

they tried to stitch up clare daly with a drink driving rap for exposing garda favouratism towards VIP members of society yet many people still think clare daly was the one in the wrong , some on this thread think any negative stories surrounding AGS are media concocted fairytales

baschically , guards have a head start in the public mind when it comes to a showdown between them an a citizen and its due to generations of conditioning

You don't give Joe Public - or the jury - much credit for being able to think for themselves, do you?

Are you the only one granted the divine insight to see this conspiracy against the public mind?

Laois_Man · 30-03-2015 09:45PM

Valetta wrote: »

Missing the point?

Ian Bailey was 100% responsible for whatever legal bill he is left with .
Not the state.
Not the judge.
Not the jury.

Yet you claim that "they" were "out to screw him".

What exactly is the point I'm missing?

Well a couple actually

The first being, I didn't say they were out to screw him. I said they were PERHAPS out to screw him - you don't know they weren't

Secondly, they have wasted the courts time knowing that this was never going to be resolved. Which it hasn't been - due to a technicality!

If you think you've done the job of defending yourself, you get vindication by letting the jury validate it. The only reason you wouldn't would be if you thought you might lose.

It is abhorrent if we cannot take such action against the state without them potentially abusing the process in this way.

Little CuChulainn · 30-03-2015 09:49PM

bun_king wrote: »

so the penalty points scandal is entirely a media created fiction

mind you dont fall when your getting off the stage

Read my post again. You seem to have added your own piece to it.

conorh91 · 30-03-2015 09:51PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Not really. As someone already pointed out, some of the claims he made against individuals were very severe, and they had a right to publicly defend themselves.

A statutory defence to the effect that a particular claim cannot be maintained should be raised in the pleadings, i.e. prior to the hearing.

O.19, r.15 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.

The defendant or plaintiff (as the case may be) must raise by his pleading all matters which show the action or counterclaim not to be maintainable, or that the transaction is either void or voidable in point of law, and all such grounds of defence or reply, as the case may be, as if not raised would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the preceding pleadings, as, for instance, fraud, Statute of Limitations, [etc].

Ian Bailey loses action v. State.

Comments