Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 164

Thread: Former Councillor Charged with Corruption

  1. #151
    Politics.ie Member Eoin Coir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,522
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergo2 View Post
    No.I made a fairly guarded comment that it cast doubts on the safety of the Forsey conviction, and later outlined some of the work that would be necessary to check this
    how right you were,it seems they relied on law which wrongly said it was up to accused to prove his innocence,not state to prove his guilt as SC have found

  2. #152
    Politics.ie Member Eoin Coir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,522
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    was Noel Whelan part of the prosecution team?

  3. #153
    Politics.ie Member Eoin Coir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,522
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoin Coir View Post
    was Noel Whelan part of the prosecution team?
    I have since learned he was,with Denis Vaughan Buckley

  4. #154
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wicklow
    Posts
    16,417
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoin Coir View Post
    Forseys' conviction was quashed by SC today, bad slip up by prosecution,but he had served his sentence. What redress now as Prosecution,Defence & Judge slipped up badly on the law
    Forsey is well worth a nice compensation payout by the State.

  5. #155
    Politics.ie Member Eoin Coir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,522
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devoutcapitalist View Post
    Forsey is well worth a nice compensation payout by the State.
    Not sure of that,he would have to prove a miscarriage of justice. People are acquitted in court all the time and cannot sue the state

  6. #156
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13,708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devoutcapitalist View Post
    Forsey is well worth a nice compensation payout by the State.
    There was overwhelming evidence against him. They will go for a re-trial - just a pity they can't give him another jail sentence.

  7. #157
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wicklow
    Posts
    16,417
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Levellers View Post
    There was overwhelming evidence against him. They will go for a re-trial - just a pity they can't give him another jail sentence.
    According to RTE the matter is before the courts in two weeks time as to whether or not the DPP will seek a retrial.

  8. #158
    Politics.ie Member Sync's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    27,607
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    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.
    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).

    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.

  9. #159
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    323
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cato View Post
    You showed remarkable restraint in not mentioning his party affiliation.
    If he was a shinner there would have been no restraint shown.

  10. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sync View Post
    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).

    So...now it's been quashed: Can we retry him and put him back in prison?
    does the ruling call into question this law Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2001
    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.
    http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0...6?OpenDocument
    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/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •