was Noel Whelan part of the prosecution team?
Oh I don't like that at all. The preponderance of evidence against a defendant shouldn't impact a ruling on whether or not he was treated as being presumed innocent during the trial (Which he should have been).In a dissenting judgment, Mr Justice John McMenamin said he considered the prosecution case was overwhelming and the defence evidence concerning the alleged loan, was discredited to the extent no jury could have concluded Mr Forsey was not guilty.
So...now it's been quashed: Can we retry him and put him back in prison?
I'm living in America, and in America, you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now f***ing pay me.
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2001http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0...6?OpenDocument
Presumption of corruption. 4.—(1) Where in any proceedings against a person referred to in subsection (5)(b) of section 1 (inserted by section 2 of this Act) of the Act of 1906 for an offence under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889 , as amended, or the Act of 1906, as amended, it is proved that— (a) any gift, consideration or advantage has been given to or received by a person, (b) the person who gave the gift, consideration or advantage or on whose behalf the gift, consideration or advantage was given had an interest in the discharge by the person of any of the functions specified in this section, the gift or consideration or advantage shall be deemed to have been given and received corruptly as an inducement to or reward for the person performing or omitting to perform any of the functions aforesaid unless the contrary is proved.
If I ask a question don't just 'like' the post, reply to it. - If I post a lot about a subject I may write a post about it at http://dublinstreams.blogspot.ie/