Free the murderers and jail the witnesses

by Devils Advocate Tue Aug 01, 2006 17:37

There was no murderer in this case. I know the dogs on the streets know what happened but if witnesses are not prepared to give evidence then how can a jury convict, unless you want non jury secert hearings with hearsay evidence being allowed. The state cannot make up evidence, each community must support the criminal justice system. the state, the Judge the Gardai none of these made a mockery of the trial it was the people who wont stand up in suppoet of THEIR community

by Seán Ryan Tue Aug 01, 2006 18:44

I appreciate your advocacy. I often play the devil's advocate myself in order to bring more substance to a story. Though I appreciate your opinion I disagree with your conclusions.

Dying needlessly to support one's community is hardly a sensible option. When the initial murder case collapsed, major change in our laws and policing were promised by none other than the minister for justice.

The only thing that has come of all this is that frightened witnesses have been punished. The parents of the murder victim, Mr. Leamy are still distraught, and have not a hope of seeing justice done. The punishing of the witnesses has done nothing other than to clear the conscience of the authorities in the matter.

Allow me to give you some links to show where I'm coming from in this:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2003/1104/207243....html
http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-03/4Nov/Sect3.htm
http://www.limerickpost.ie/dailynews.elive?id=7090&cate...y-Fri
http://breaking.tcm.ie/2005/07/27/story213652.html

As for the community supporting the criminal justice system - I wholeheartedly agree with you. However the criminal justice system must as it's first cause, protect it's citizens. And this must be a prerequisite to the community owing any alliegence to the authorities. I submit to you that this is not the case and that it is left for the community to look out for and defend themselves.

by Devils Advocate Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:20

I see where you are coming from but the criminal justice system cannot operate without the support of the community. The State needs the witness in order to prove the case, the State cannot ( and must never) make up evidence. every body has the right to face his/her accuser and cross examine them. the alternative is courts run on hearsay evidence which is not a correct procedure in a modern state. i would say that the state needs the support of the community and the community needs the support of the state. as for the punishment of the two people in Limerick i would say that the penalty is minimal. Did the witness "forget" due to fear or being bought, i dont know. if it was fear the was the witness protection programme considered? if it was because the witness was bought or due to some sense of loyalty towards the accused, then the penalty was not enough to deter others from supporting the state and their community in the prosecution of these thugs. in this case Thugs 1 State & Community 0

by Seán Ryan Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:47

Witnesses were petrified. They had been intimidated big time. They were not offered protection but threatened with incarceration. Both witnesses in this piece lived in the Island. As is the case with their families. Protection would have been close to impossible, or rather very expensive. So the State chose the cheap option, and prosecuted those unable to defend themselves.

Check out my third link - from the Limerick Post, to get an idea of the intimidation.

by Seb Brio Sat Aug 12, 2006 14:54

If witnesses are not prepared to come forward due to intimidation then Law and order breaks down. This has to be discouraged otherwise witnesses could be bought off and claim they were intimidated. So we either continue with the present jury and witness system with all its flaws or we go for an alternative.

What exactly does Sean want the Minister to do? Give the Gardai extra powers which he well knows will be used ahgainst political activists? Extend the use of the Special Criminal Courts? Again these powers would most likely be used against Anti War Activists than against Limerick Thugs. There are consequences to calls for action. Sean should be aware of this.

Lets stick to the current system. If witneses refuse to testify then there must be a penalty, especially if they wont even name those who allegedly intimidate them.

by Seán Ryan Sat Aug 12, 2006 17:30

Same ole tired spin again and again.

These particular witnesses came forwards, and gave statements to the Gardai. After this and during the subsequent court case (which their coming forward facilitated to begin with) they were intimidated. The Gardai were aware of this, as was the Justice system. And they didn't help. They didn't offer protection, they offered threat, and were no better than those who initially threatened these people. And indeed the authorities carried out their threat. And still a young man has lost his life, and the authorities have done nothing.

You've asked what I would have the authorities do. I suggest that what I have written, in itself, offers the answers. But let me simplify it nonetheless.

Gardai - Guard the peace.
Judiciary - Incarcerate and deal justice to criminals, protect the innocent, and forget all business law until this can be said to reflect reality.
Local Authorities and Government - Represent, those whom they are mandated to represent and forget representing themselves or 'big business' altogether.

That's not too much to ask for is it.

by Seb Brio Sun Aug 13, 2006 14:42

"Judiciary - Incarcerate and deal justice to criminals, protect the innocent, and forget all business law until this can be said to reflect reality.'

The Judiciary will not be able to do this unless witnesses are prepared to come forward and give evidence in court. There has to be some sanction against those who refuse to speak in Court. With some it will be because they have been paid off, others because they asre related to or know the accused and in some cases it will be because of intimidation.

Its not just a Judge in Court, in the Circuit and HIgh Courts there is also a Jury, they have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty. The accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The administration of Justice isnt as simple as you attempt to make iot out to be.

As for Business Law: that includes cases for personal injury in occupational and vehicle accidents. It includes small traders and farmers taking cases against Banks. Do you really want to shut down this section of the Courts?

by Seán Ryan Mon Aug 14, 2006 18:34

Allow me to simplify what I have said.

The courts exist in order to serve the people. They are supposed to do this by administering justice. The need for justice arises from a need to protect the peoples of this land.

The courts are willing on one hand to punish people, this is not in dispute, nor is the manner in which this is arrived at, ie. people giving witness. However by not providing an atmosphere in which a witness may give their testimony, without fear of retribution, the justice system has fallen at the very first hurdle. Logic has to play a part in the procedure. If a witness cannot give evidence without fear of being killed or their family being harmed, then it logically stands to reason that this witness will not testify. However, if the courts and the Gardaí exist to protect people, it can be seen that logically, they fail in this first and most important step in the administration of justice - inside their own doorway as it were. And that they are not fit to pursue that, which they are mandated to pursue. In the case in question, if protection had been given to the witnesses, the murder case would have gone forwards. Some may claim here, and indeed the State claims, that the burden of guilt, for the collapse of the murder case, must fall on the witnesses who refused to give evidence. Surely any right thinking individual would at the least agree, that the justice system itself had a part to play, in the collapse of the trial. Ministers have promised wide sweeping changes arising from this particular case. This implies that these ministers also see the State's complicity in the collapse of this trial. No changes have yet arisen.

As for my comment about business law.

Business law exists solely, to undermine, and to do away with the rights of the individual. And they accomplish this by bestowing rights on some corporate entity, and by recognising that this entity has rights similar to an individual (but in this case these rights seek to supercede the rights of the individual.)

It has been suggested here, that I seek to have civil suits put on the back boiler. This is very ambiguous. People claiming compensation from companies, rarely if ever seen the inside of a courtroom. Compensation cases are nearly always settled outside the courts. What I meant by ignoring business law was, Companies suing each other, Patenting Laws, Libel Cases. Basically any case that involves money. Murder is more important (in my opinion) and the safety and well being of peoples in Ireland is also more important.

For example. Gardaí manning cash transits, would do better to protect the people they are mandated to protect.

It is all about prioritisation. And the 'Authorities' have gotten it very wrong.

by Seb Brio Mon Aug 14, 2006 19:53

'It has been suggested here, that I seek to have civil suits put on the back boiler. This is very ambiguous. People claiming compensation from companies, rarely if ever seen the inside of a courtroom. '

This is not correct. If you bother to read the papers, every day you see cases decided in both the Circuit and High Courts for injuries, damages, unfair dismissal etc. Where do you get your information from?

'For example. Gardaí manning cash transits, would do better to protect the people they are mandated to protect.'

Are the Garda not mandated to protect the workers who transfer the cash? Not everyone regards armed robbery or the injuring or killing of security guards as less important.

You have not addressed the point that some witnesses will not give evidence because they have been paid off or are related to or friendly with the accused. These witnesses could also claim that they have been threatened. How would you deal with this?

by Seán Ryan Tue Aug 15, 2006 03:19

Your debating technique is very familiar. You repeat what I have said and then tell me I'm wrong, sometimes throwing in some asinine 'proof,' that supposedly lends credence to what you have to say.

You read about folk winning the lottery too in the papers. This doesn't mean that every fucker that tries their luck will win does it?

I think if you were to look realistically around yourself that you'd find that the vast majority of people murdered in this country are neither Gardai nor security guards. My comment was about proportionality. The focus of Garda personell and resources is nowhere near being proportional on this issue, most resources are focused on protecting cash, not people.

I have at no point said that witnesses were either paid off or that they were friendly with the suspect. And why you bring it up like it has relevance, I don't know. But, if I could prove it, I'd prosecute it. If I couldn't prove it I'd err on the side of caution and offer protection. And you know what? This is the course that the Justice System is already legislated for.

by A. Barrister Tue Aug 15, 2006 03:34

How does being sentenced to Community Service equate with serving time in a Jail? the title of this is disengenuous at the least.

They Court could not convict for Murder because these persons met the legal definition of Perjury.

The Gardai are blamed for not providing Protection, do we have any tangible eveidence of this?

The Journalism standards here are appallingly sub par in this case.

by Seán Ryan Tue Aug 15, 2006 19:20

Community service is a punishment.

I agree journalism on this issue sucks.

As for tangible evidence that neither the Gardai nor the Courts provided protection, check out the links I have given, particularly Dail debates.

The reason they could not convict for murder was not perjury (A barrister like yourself should understand this). They could not convict or indeed try the case for murder, because the trial collapsed. One could blame this on the perjury, true, but this is not to look at the issue in depth, indeed this is the way the justice system has looked at it. The trial collapsed because the witnesses would not give evidence, due to the fact that they had been threatened, and subsequently, the Gardai and the Courts failed to offer them the protection that they were entitled to.

To fix any problem, one should focus on the totality of the issue, and not just the symptoms that it produces.

by A10 Wed Aug 16, 2006 13:25

If you want witnesses to testify you must indeed give them creditable protection.[not just a placebo of a kevlar vest,which they then lose the moment the trial is over] and their immediate family,then if they refuse to testify in court you can apply the sanction of imprisonment on them.

BUT the big problem is creditable protection.How long will the armed protection hang around the house after the court case and the guilty are sent down?[About a day] How long is it before you and yours are out of the hotel and having to move back into your house ,be it in shitville or millionares row?
How long will the criminals friends,family,colleuges remember the person who grassed on them???A long time! How quick will the gaurds respond after you dial 999 screaming that there are four balaclaved ones coming up the stairs for you with shotguns???Will the gaurds give you a gun liscense and training to protect yourself?? Will they Fuck!
Put it simply a witness to a crime who will testify is vitally important until the moment he/she is out of the witness box.Then they are worthless to the law.
Witness protection is a big money drain on the State,ask the FBI witness protection programme how much their budjet is PA[??freely available on the net BTW] Trouble here is,the State is a tightwad and wont spend the money on honouring it's responsibilities to it's taxpayers,or even it's servants.Remember the intimidated garda of Roxborough,by the famous K---y gang.??They moved him to Ennis!!20 miles away!!
If you want to be a witness,fine,remember the moment you are out of the court,you are on your own.And the criminals know this!

by broke Wed Aug 16, 2006 13:36

fs the irish version of witness protection in a case like this would be the squad car dropping round every so often

You would think that they would have a nice fat budget seeing how much the CAB takes, but the reality is there budget is pathethic and they have neitheir the manpower or resourches to do it even if they wanted to

by Seán Ryan Wed Aug 16, 2006 18:26

Shots were fired at children on Monday. In Limerick. The feud is still in full swing. The families of these kids haven't bothered to take the issue up with the Gardaí.

The Gardaí have acted in their usual fashion, and have labelled the act as 'extremely serious.' They've done fuck all other than this.

The papers say a 'full investigation' is under way.

I'll keep Indy readers informed of the 'progress' and culmination, of this farce that is loosely termed an 'investigation.'

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=19235...51872

by Seb Brio Wed Aug 16, 2006 18:32

Would you arm the Gardai or declare martial law and send in the Army? You seem to want a "Law & Order" solution but be careful, you might get just that. I dont want to see the Army patrolling South Hill just so that FF can save a seat in the next election. I'm not with you there Sean

by Seán Ryan Wed Aug 16, 2006 22:23

You could ask a thousand irrelevant questions I'm sure. But you've yet to ask one relevant one. This is pathetic even for a troll.

For your information, I have seen armed Gardai roam the streets of South Hill, Moyross, Ballynanty, Thomondgate, Killeely, Weston, The Island, and Watergate. Still violent crime escalates.

So to answer you innane question - no I'd not see armed Gardai roam anywhere, if I had my way.

To be blunt: I haven't asked that you be 'with me.' You wouldn't even begin to make the grade.

Please troll elsewhere, or be shown for the fool you are everytime.

by A10 Thu Aug 17, 2006 00:23

You obviously live in Limerick,as I do.You know what sort of circumstances some these witnesses live in,like right next door to the feuding fammilies etc.
The witness protection is a joke,the courts and gardai dont give a fuck once you have said your bit.The gurriers of the fammilies are threatning your missus and kids and family,you cant get a gun to defend yourself or your family,and if you do get one illegaly you will end up quicker in the nick than the drug dealers,as no doubt somone will rat you out.

What is your solution then???

by Seán Ryan Fri Oct 19, 2007 17:51

Roy Behan a man of 28 years who was with Eric Leamy on the night he was killed, witnessed the killing, accompanied his friend to the hospital and then made a statement to the Gardaí naming the alleged killer, was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment yesterday by Judge Caroll Moran for perjury due to the fact that Mr. Behan later retracted his statement after threats were received. Doubtless this man's testimony would have secured a conviction for the murder of Eric Leamy, had the State guaranteed the safety of this witness and his family, including his young child.

There wasn't any protection offered to any of the witnesses who 'perjured' themselves in the murder trial. Rather than setting an example I believe this type of behaviour by the State will result in potential witnesses not coming forward in the first instance. This 'victory' in the courts is being touted as a victory against criminal gangs. That's complete nonsense, the exact opposite is true.

Perjury carries a possible jail sentence of 7 years.

When was the last time a Garda, a politician or a company executive found gulity of perjury?

It seems that only the poor can be found guilty of perjury in this country.