Former Councillor Charged with Corruption


Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,871
You said the acquittal of Ryan casts doubt on Forsey's conviction.... why ?

Two overlapping cases....

How come doubt isn't cast on the second case ?
What point of law is there to appeal? What new evidence has come up to call for a new trial?
 

ergo2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
14,242
You said the acquittal of Ryan casts doubt on Forsey's conviction.... why ?

Two overlapping cases....

How come doubt isn't cast on the second case ?
If by the second case you mean Forseys, I think some doubt is cast on that verdict

At least the two transcripts and the exhibits should be checked for any variances
y.
 

emulator

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
10,262
What point of law is there to appeal? What new evidence has come up to call for a new trial?
None that I know of but other posters are automatically assuming Forsey's conviction may not be sound because of the result of this one. I think it's very early days to suggest anything like that.

Who's to say Ryan's is the correct verdict and Forsey's is incorrect ? That's what is being suggested here....
 

emulator

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
10,262
If by the second case you mean Forseys, I think some doubt is cast on that verdict

At least the two transcripts and the exhibits should be checked for any variances
y.
I assumed Ryan's was the second....

I meant Ryan's case....
 

ergo2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
14,242
None that I know of but other posters are automatically assuming Forsey's conviction may not be sound because of the result of this one. I think it's very early days to suggest anything like that.

Who's to say Ryan's is the correct verdict and Forsey's is incorrect ? That's what is being suggested here....
After 50 years in legal practice I would not automatically assume anything.

As suggested before, the transcripts and exhibits for both trials should be carefully examined, and take it from there
 
Last edited:

emulator

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
10,262
Ryan's acquittal casts doubts on the safety of Forsey's conviction
After 50 years in legal practice I would not automatically assume anything.

As suggested before, the transcripts and exhibits for both trials should be carefully examined, and take it from there
No disrespect to your 50 years in legal practice but that's precisely what you did in your first post....
 

ergo2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
14,242
No disrespect to your 50 years in legal practice but that's precisely what you did in your first 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
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,277
The rule in Irish politics, is

"Do as you wish, but make sure it never gets found out".
 

Eoin Coir

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
16,640
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
 

Eoin Coir

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
16,640
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
 

devoutcapitalist

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
16,610
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.
 

devoutcapitalist

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
16,610
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.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,871
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?
 

lostexpectation

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
13,977
Website
dublinstreams.blogspot.com
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
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD] Presumption of corruption.[/TD]
[TD] 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—[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD] (a) any gift, consideration or advantage has been given to or received by a person,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD] (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,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD] 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.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/9dfb47af282012ac8025833f004f63f6?OpenDocument
 
Top