"Leading lawyers call for Bill on gangs to be withdrawn"- Irish Times

[jpc]

Ardent civil rights lawers take to the Irish Times letters page.
Maybe its going to make their jobs tougher.
There are other practical,cheaper simpler solutions that have been mentioned before
Segregation of jurors and witnesses behind screens. Different entrances / exits for these particular cases for participants.
But as mentioned in a previous reply.
The eloquent 133 are very short on real solutions to a very real issue for society.

[oscartango]

I would be thinking the same. Criminal lawyers need these thugs free to ply their trade to generate their income - they are their bread and butter.

You've been reading Rumpole, haven't you ?

[Libero]

You are aware that opinion evidence has been admissable in "membership" trials since the 1970s?

So why weren't bent coppers with a grudge banging up innocents up and down the county for supposedly being provos?

Probably because their colleagues in Special Branch would not have been amused at those sort of tactics. A few 'grudge' convictions, followed by appeals and acquittals would have made it much harder to put away the real Provos.

With the proposed new legislation, there is no single anti-gang unit of the Gardai - comparable to Special Branch - who can lean on colleagues to make sure they don't abuse the extraordinary powers.

One can understand criminal laywers trying to do the best for their client base.

Neg rep fot that slur, which stupidly ignores that many criminal lawyers are mostly prosecutors. Certainly, they know and care more about the issue than some tabloid news editor. That said, you're probably right about public popularity and the insanity of a war on drugs.

There are going to be Court actions brought by parties against it anyway if it now proceeds into law, with the inevitable argument that it is unconstitutional - therefore the President referral to the Supreme Court now would seem to be an option worth seriously considering - I assume she's at least thinking about this presently.

Careful here.

Under an Article 26 reference, the case against the Bill - made by selected barristers to the Supreme Court - can only be made in the abstract. Sometimes the process is rushed.
There is no real-life accused who is in jail, no miscarriages of justice already apparent that can be pointed at to help influence the court.

And unlike other appeals against the legislation, if the Supreme Court rules the Bill OK, that's it. Forever. Even if months later, other failings and weaknesses of the legislation make themselves clear.

I bet these 133 lawyesr only see their enormous fees being eroded because of this Bill. I cant believe people are giving credence to a bunch of self interested morons.

Unless you have access to their secret diaries, you're the presumptious, character-attacking moron.

Apart from some members of the legal profession the only people who are worried about this Bill's passing are the murderous criminals it aims to take out of our midst

After reading this thread, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Lots of countries suffer from organised crime, often to a greater extent than ours. How many of them have internment-lite like what is proposed?
That gives the lie to your assertion that it is only natural that organised crime be met by legislation like this.

[greengoose2]

I would be thinking the same. Criminal lawyers need these thugs free to ply their trade to generate their income - they are their bread and butter.

They could earn more "bread and butter" if the criminals who wrecked this country were hauled before the courts. But as usual, iIrish legislation is geared to proctect gombeenism and sleaze.

There is enough crime around to keep the legal profession amused. We are very far short of having sufficient garda numbers and adequate policing equipment. All we get from this government is how much monet they are allocation to the various departments. In the case of the gardai, they have to deal with a hugely increased population. The answer to that is to have two chinese and some african gardai to make it look good.

Put the cart before the horse (that bolted before the stable door was shut) and let's get things into context.

Laws need to be upheld. Litter in the streets and fly tipping goes unpunished! We had beach cleanups when a few litter wardens backed up by non existant gardai would have the place clean.

[Watcher1]

Probably because their colleagues in Special Branch would not have been amused at those sort of tactics. A few 'grudge' convictions, followed by appeals and acquittals would have made it much harder to put away the real Provos.

With the proposed new legislation, there is no single anti-gang unit of the Gardai - comparable to Special Branch - who can lean on colleagues to make sure they don't abuse the extraordinary powers.


Neg rep fot that slur, which stupidly ignores that many criminal lawyers are mostly prosecutors. Certainly, they know and care more about the issue than some tabloid news editor. That said, you're probably right about public popularity and the insanity of a war on drugs.


Careful here.

Under an Article 26 reference, the case against the Bill - made by selected barristers to the Supreme Court - can only be made in the abstract. Sometimes the process is rushed.
There is no real-life accused who is in jail, no miscarriages of justice already apparent that can be pointed at to help influence the court.

And unlike other appeals against the legislation, if the Supreme Court rules the Bill OK, that's it. Forever. Even if months later, other failings and weaknesses of the legislation make themselves clear.


Unless you have access to their secret diaries, you're the presumptious, character-attacking moron.


After reading this thread, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Lots of countries suffer from organised crime, often to a greater extent than ours. How many of them have internment-lite like what is proposed?
That gives the lie to your assertion that it is only natural that organised crime be met by legislation like this.

Why? Are you a lawyer?

[Libero]

I would be thinking the same. Criminal lawyers need these thugs free to ply their trade to generate their income - they are their bread and butter.

You're not as thick as that, kerrynorth. A thug free to walk the street isn't earning them any money - not unless you've fantasies of barristers in the Four Courts doing a sideline advising gangsters on how to avoid getting caught, like Maurice Levy in The Wire.

Some criminal lawyers will do very nicely from legislation like this.

The prosecuting solicitors and barristers will be able to justify lots of hours in preparation for prosecutions brought under novel and untested legislation. Same goes for those defending the accused.

At an appelate level, some of the most senior silks in the land will knock this back and forth all the way to the Supreme Court and onto Europe and even the UN.

Really, compared with the status quo, your average criminal lawyer (especially the senior ones) will be licking their lips at the work about to be delivered into their laps by Dermot Ahern. And the lion's share of the work will be very expensive and paid for by the state.
It is beyond me how it is in criminal lawyers' financial interests to oppose this Bill.

[jpc]

Greengose:

Put the cart before the horse (that bolted before the stable door was shut) and let's get things into context.

Laws need to be upheld. Litter in the streets and fly tipping goes unpunished! We had beach cleanups when a few litter wardens backed up by non existant gardai would have the place clean.[/QUOTE]

You have a very valid point in this respect.
Can't help but think of Zero O'Donoghue and his speeding state car shennanigans.
The law is great as long as it doesn't impact on me.

[Watcher1]

You're not as thick as that, kerrynorth. A thug free to walk the street isn't earning them any money - not unless you've fantasies of barristers in the Four Courts doing a sideline advising gangsters on how to avoid getting caught, like Maurice Levy in The Wire.

Some criminal lawyers will do very nicely from legislation like this.

The prosecuting solicitors and barristers will be able to justify lots of hours in preparation for prosecutions brought under novel and untested legislation. Same goes for those defending the accused.

At an appelate level, some of the most senior silks in the land will knock this back and forth all the way to the Supreme Court and onto Europe and even the UN.

Really, compared with the status quo, your average criminal lawyer (especially the senior ones) will be licking their lips at the work about to be delivered into their laps by Dermot Ahern. And the lion's share of the work will be very expensive and paid for by the state.
It is beyond me how it is in criminal lawyers' financial interests to oppose this Bill.

Hang on a second Libero, it seems you are the thick one here after posting that reply. Having the scumbags free does create income for the lawyers because the gardai pick them up, they get a court date and a lawyer and then because of our inadequate laws they are not convicted so the lawyer gets another day in court the next time these feckers are picked up.

[Libero]

Why? Are you a lawyer?

So you want to move away from attacking the character of those who signed the letter (a line of attack you're now choosing not to back up), and move on to attacking my character?

I am not a practising criminal barrister or solicitor; never have been, never will be. I've no skin in this game, although as I've explained on other posts, I think it's pretty ignorant to presume that it's in the financial interests of the letter's signatories to oppose the legislation.

It's always pretty ignorant to accuse, without at least good grounds for suspicion, that someone you disagree with on a matter of public policy is motivated by personal gain.

[Hewson]

After reading this thread, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Lots of countries suffer from organised crime, often to a greater extent than ours. How many of them have internment-lite like what is proposed?
That gives the lie to your assertion that it is only natural that organised crime be met by legislation like this.

Lots of countries suffer from organised crime, but I live here, so it's this one I'm concerned about. 'Internment-lite' is an utterly idiotic description for what is proposed (you work in the legal profession? If so, you should know better.) Drug-dealing gangs pose as serious a threat to the fabric of society as any of the terrorist outfits did in previous decades. Internment in Northern Ireland failed because it was seen to be practised against one section of society, the same section that had been victimised for generations by a corrupt administration.

The notion that Gardai are going to troop into court and send innocent people to jail with a few damning words is pure fantasy. The nature of crime in this country has changed and the law needs to change to, at least, keep up.

The usual voices of dissent are the same voices whose silence is conspicious when solutions are called for.

Let's hear yours, if you have any.