Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding fail to get costs reimbursed

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭Nermal


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Perhaps there should be.

    But there isn't.

    That. Is. The. Entire. Point.

    I didn’t know that discussing what should be was off limits here, and that we were only allowed to discuss what is. Thanks though!


  • Options
    #93
    sexmag
    Registered Users Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭sexmag


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    There is no automatic right to recover costs.



    Same judge that heard the case made the ruling on costs I'm happy with that.



    Maybe it's just me but I got the impression that she felt Paddy Jackson wasn't being totally honest/ giving full facts in their application



    I'd imagine the lads can appeal the costs so if the judge made a mistake it can be rectified?

    Well the issue with that is the judge is making her decision based on her own bias. Just because she "thinks" they did it doesn't mean she should then base any further rulings on this presumption. So if she denied them their costs because she thinks they did it, it is a dangerous things as it means judges are moving away from rulings and taking the law into their own hands.


  • Options
    #94
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    The case should never have been taken.

    What went on that night was pretty shocking but only for people who arent into rugby. It was probably typical and Jackson and his pals were used to women willingly playing the spit roast game and this night in their eyes was no different to any other night of the week for them, they had another spit roast the night after the one the complaint was made and probably received whatsapps texts then too. They may previously had uninterrupted spitroasts so the women involved werent witnessed three in a bed but unfortuneately the night that ruined their lives the woman involved was seen and then everything changed.

    The Jury saw the whole no case to answer scenario and because of how quickly the verdict came back most reasonable people would think the case wasnt strong enough to be brought and it wasnt as if the men werent anonymous, they were named immediately.

    Some of their costs should definitely be paid and all other young rugby players need to be strongly advised about taking randomers home with them while intoxicated. The men had probably not been out at all while in South Africa so would have overindulged and being young men would have taken any offer of sex, very dangerous mix nowadays when any man charged with rape will be deemed guilty before, during and after his trial and even if found not guilty the witch hunt wont stop until his life is ruined while he is still in his early twenties.


  • Options
    #95
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,897 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    sexmag wrote: »
    Well the issue with that is the judge is making her decision based on her own bias. Just because she "thinks" they did it doesn't mean she should then base any further rulings on this presumption. So if she denied them their costs because she thinks they did it, it is a dangerous things as it means judges are moving away from rulings and taking the law into their own hands.




    Ah no. I wasn't suggesting that. He wasn't forthcoming about his finances


    The Judge also revealed: "Mr Jackson has declined the opportunity to provide evidence regarding his current financial situation, including the extent to which he has repaid the debt to his father."


    On a different matter what can she consider? She heard the legal arguments that the jury didn't. She knows evidence that she didn't allow. Obviously she can't consider these things.


    Can she consider the amount a drink taken for example? by the defendants & claimant? Can she consider that they could have done more to ensure consent was established? Before anyone lashes out at me I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just wondering after hearing the case in full what she can consider now? Respecting the not guilty verdict can she still look at proven facts in the case that she might consider were contributing factors? Her statement below suggests that she can.

    The trial judge also said she had taken into account the 'special facts and circumstances' of the case.
    Judge Smyth said: "This was a complex police investigation and the prosecution was warranted, albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.


    The prosecution was warranted in her opinion based on the evidence. What does that mean? Is she/can she withholding a refund of their fees because they left themselves wide open to being accused as compared to someone randomly accused who never even met her?


  • Options
    #96
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Nermal wrote: »
    Why shouldn’t there be? How can it be justice that an innocent person has their career ruined and has had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds when they’ve not committed an offence?

    This is the question isn't it?

    Someone must blow through their savings, or go into debt, to take on the might of the state's near limitless resources (as opposed to non mega rich)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Dandelion6
    Registered Users Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭Dandelion6


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    It is a problem with justice systems the world over - those with deeper resources can afford more and better lawyers.

    I am really not sure about "better", at least not when it comes to criminal trials. This isn't the US where you have a public defender system staffed by resentful overworked new law school graduates or those too incompetent to get a job in a private firm. Here legal aid is paid by the state to a privately-employed lawyer, who will also be acting for clients who aren't entitled to legal aid. Most criminal defendants are and so a lawyer who only takes private clients isn't going to have as much experience in the criminal courts as one who takes legally aided clients. I know which one I'd want to defend me.

    Bottom line here is legal aid is means-tested and in this case the applicants were found not to meet the financial criteria. They are international rugby players. This should not be a surprise.


  • Options
    #98
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    All the top QCs get to cherry pick their clients. I can't remember which one of them was represented by Arthur Harvey, but he, as an example, was the lead barrister for the Bloody Sunday families and has been one of the top barristers in the north for decades.

    They do gravy train tribunals and inquiries and defense work. Those lads aren't doing legal aid work except for good publicity as the costs don't come close to covering their fees


  • Options
    #99
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Moderator: Despite warnings to keep the thread on topic for Legal Discussion, there's no active engagement with any legal principles and this thread has no place in this forum.

    Thread closed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement