Does the Garda Press Office compromise prosecutions?

Nordkapp said:
This is a good one

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...surance-eight-years-out-of-date-36174408.html
Click to expand...
Does anyone really believe these Garda Press Office press release fairy stories?

Gardai are duty bound to process serious cases of disqualified driving, driving without insurance and associated fraud. This is normally done by completing a file for the DPP with a view to facilitating a prosecution.

There's no way that the prosecution of such a serious case would be put at risk by publicising it in such a manner.
 
T McGibney said:
There's no way that the prosecution of such a serious case would be put at risk by publicising it in such a manner.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything that they've posted that would compromise chances of a conviction.
 
Leo said:
They've redacted enough in the picture posted so as not to cause any issues.
Click to expand...

No they haven't. If I end up in court in three months time for being caught on Tuesday 26 September with 8-years-expired insurance, my solicitor will be delighted to be able to claim that my case has been prejudiced by being highlighted in such a fashion on mass media.

How can you seriously deny this?
 
T McGibney said:
No they haven't. If I end up in court in three months time for being caught on Tuesday 26 September with 8-years-expired insurance, my solicitor will be delighted to be able to claim that my case has been prejudiced by being highlighted in such a fashion on mass media.

How can you seriously deny this?
Click to expand...

Name the driver so? If you can't there's no issue with the case. It's highly unlikely a judge will be swayed by anything that has been reported to date.
 
Leo said:
Name the driver so? If you can't there's no issue with the case. It's highly unlikely a judge will be swayed by anything that has been reported to date.
Click to expand...
They may well be swayed by the rather predictable contention that the Gardai corrupted the prosecution case by unilaterally forming an opinion on the driver's guilt and then needlessly publicising it. And if they're not, an appeal judge might well take the view that they should have been.
 
T McGibney said:
They may well be swayed by the rather predictable contention that the Gardai corrupted the prosecution case by unilaterally forming an opinion on the driver's guilt and then needlessly publicising it. And if they're not, an appeal judge might well take the view that they should have been.
Click to expand...

I just don't see it happening. Even from what they stated on the post, the only thing that doesn't refer to the discs in the picture is the length of time the driver has been disqualified for. SO unless that's factually incorrect...
 
Leo said:
I just don't see it happening.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to disagree but my point stands regardless.

Leo said:
Even from what they stated on the post, the only thing that doesn't refer to the discs in the picture is the length of time the driver has been disqualified for. SO unless that's factually incorrect...
Click to expand...

I don't see your point here. If this is a real case (and I'd gladly wager you that it isn't), when it comes to court it will be identifiable as this one, unless the defendant is unaware of the media publicity and/or has especially dopey legal representation.
 
T McGibney said:
You're entitled to disagree but my point stands regardless.
Click to expand...

I never suggested it doesn't, my opinion is just that.

T McGibney said:
I don't see your point here. If this is a real case (and I'd gladly wager you that it isn't), when it comes to court it will be identifiable as this one, unless the defendant is unaware of the media publicity and/or has especially dopey legal representation.
Click to expand...

So if it is a real case, and goes to court, the defence would somehow have to prove that the Garda statement in relation to the expiry dates on the discs pictured was false. If charged with driving while disqualified, the driver will have to prove he didn't acknowledge that fact when dealing with the Gardai.

If it was a different matter that might end up with a jury trial, then there would be a much more significant chance. But even in jury trials where there has been widespread media coverage and speculation preceding the trial, the jury selection process aims to eliminate those who may have formed an opinion based on that coverage.
 
Leo said:
So if it is a real case, and goes to court, the defence would somehow have to prove that the Garda statement in relation to the expiry dates on the discs pictured was false.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. Where did you get that from?
 
T McGibney said:
No it wouldn't. Where did you get that from?
Click to expand...

You're saying their comment on the details in the picture prejudices the case. What do you think they have posted that would cause a judge to feel they have been compromised from making a decision based solely on the fact of the case as presented in court?
 
T McGibney said:
I didn't actually. I did say that this is readily arguable.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and it's just my opinion, but I can't see this getting before a judge without concrete evidence of the driving ban and/or a lack of valid tax/ insurance. Prejudice only comes into play in the event of circumstantial evidence where the judge has to make a call based on the stories put forward by both sides.
 
Leo said:
Prejudice only comes into play in the event of circumstantial evidence where the judge has to make a call based on the stories put forward by both sides.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Cases like this often fall on technical grounds concerning the Gardai's conduct and processing of the case and matters therein.

Such failures are usually highly embarrassing to the Gardai, which makes me question why they would imperil a successful prosecution for the sake of a cheap headline.
 
Leo said:
Then I'd love to see a court case where a fact is 100% proven beyond any doubt where prejudice caused that evidence to be discounted.
Click to expand...
"100% proven beyond any doubt"? This isn't a court of law, you're anonymous and I'm not a lawyer so maybe you're expecting too much.

There are loads of cases that have fallen on grounds of prejudice or irregularities. You're really denying that? http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/just-40-of-drink-drive-cases-end-in-conviction-360263.html
 
T McGibney said:
"100% proven beyond any doubt"? This isn't a court of law, you're anonymous and I'm not a lawyer so maybe you're expecting too much.

There are loads of cases that have fallen on grounds of prejudice or irregularities. You're really denying that? http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/just-40-of-drink-drive-cases-end-in-conviction-360263.html
Click to expand...

I'm well aware, but it is really black and white as to whether someone is driving while subject to a ban, or is displaying valid tax, insurance and NCT discs at the time they are stopped at a checkpoint. The point here is purely your opinion that the contents of that Garda Facebook post could result in a judge prejudicing their own opinion on innocence or guilt on a black and white matter when the identity of who was driving the car in question hasn't even been made public. It's clear that judges can, and in some areas in particular, seem to take a very lenient approach on findings in drink driving and other cases, but that's a different matter entirely.

How many of those failed drink-driving prosecutions were as a result of the judge forming an opinion pre-trial as to guilt or innocence?
 
Leo said:
The point here is purely your opinion that the contents of that Garda Facebook post could result in a judge prejudicing their own opinion on innocence or guilt on a black and white matter when the identity of who was driving the car in question hasn't even been made public.
Click to expand...

Of course it's my opinion. What else is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top