Yes
No
I hear that Trevor gave his €47k going away money to the SVdeP.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." Mark Twain
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” Napoléon Bonaparte
Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, Section 6Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974
6.—(1) ( a ) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to communicate with the Attorney General or an officer of the Attorney General, the Director or an officer of the Director the Acting Director, a member of the Garda Síochána or a solicitor who acts on behalf of the Attorney General in his official capacity for the Director in his official capacity, for the purpose of influencing making of a decision to withdraw or not to initiate criminal proceedings or any particular charge in criminal proceedings.
[GA]
( b ) If a person referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection becomes of opinion that a communication is in breach of that paragraph, it shall be the duty of the person not to entertain the communication further.
[GA]
(2) ( a ) This section does not apply to—
[GA]
(i) communications made by a person who is a defendant or a complainant in criminal proceedings or believes that he is likely to be a defendant in criminal proceedings, or
[GA]
(ii) communications made by a person involved in the matter either personally or as legal or medical adviser to a person involved in the matter or as a social worker or a member of the family of a person involved in the matter.
[GA]
( b ) In this subsection "member of the family" means wife, husband, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, a person who is the subject of, or in whose favour there is made, an adoption order under the Adoption, Act 1952 and 1964.
Seems pretty much cut and dried. At a stretch TS might have claimed he was involved in the matter 'personally' as the TD representing the community.
He may not have been aware he was breaking the law when he made representations on behalf of one of his constituents but unfortunately for TS ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
Last edited by SAT; 25th February 2010 at 02:17 AM.
Though FF deny being the leaker and seem to be believed it's perfectly possible that they caused the letter to be leaked by a third party, I suppose.
This comment go mixed up in David's contribution, unaccountably.