The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
You probably could, but the Gardaí would tell you to fúck off.Mullet 2 wrote:anonymous_joe wrote:I'd be amazed if the Defendant complained to the Gardaí.
Can I complain?
Agreed. Some idiots wanted us to be able to hold client funds under the LSRA. Absolute bollocks, I don't want other people's monies.The Sun God wrote:The idea that solicitors can hold client funds in escrow in this day and age is utterly ridiculous.... I wouldn't trust most of them with the keys to the petty cash box.Duff Paddy wrote:I view solicitors as a trusted profession - the bar (pardon the pun) should be much higher for them as regards behaviour and fraud, as it is in medicine. This guy blatantly lied to the “court” and only admitted it when he was caught out. How are you not shocked by this type of behaviour from a colleague
That shouldn’t trump the rights of the accused in a system that says you’re innocent until proven guiltyanonymous_joe wrote:There's some logic to it.
There's a body of law relating to "similar fact" scenarios, where serial abusers would target their victims in a very specific way. Often the charging of such a person could encourage other victims to come forward.
At that point, the facts are well-known to all involved in the case, so fakers would have difficulty inveigling themselves into the process whilst genuine victims could more easily be identified.
I would also have severe qualms about holding rape cases in private.Duff Paddy wrote:That shouldn’t trump the rights of the accused in a system that says you’re innocent until proven guiltyanonymous_joe wrote:There's some logic to it.
There's a body of law relating to "similar fact" scenarios, where serial abusers would target their victims in a very specific way. Often the charging of such a person could encourage other victims to come forward.
At that point, the facts are well-known to all involved in the case, so fakers would have difficulty inveigling themselves into the process whilst genuine victims could more easily be identified.
camroc1 wrote:I would also have severe qualms about holding rape cases in private.Duff Paddy wrote:That shouldn’t trump the rights of the accused in a system that says you’re innocent until proven guiltyanonymous_joe wrote:There's some logic to it.
There's a body of law relating to "similar fact" scenarios, where serial abusers would target their victims in a very specific way. Often the charging of such a person could encourage other victims to come forward.
At that point, the facts are well-known to all involved in the case, so fakers would have difficulty inveigling themselves into the process whilst genuine victims could more easily be identified.
I can understand the reasoning, but based on the experience of family law in our own jurisdiction, it can lead to a particular branch of law developing in judicial decisions in a particular direction without any (in particular politicians and the general public) bar those participating being aware of the path the law is taking.
There are good reasons why traditionally justice is blind, and that not only must it be done, but it must be seen to be done.
Not Guilty = Innocent in the eyes of the law.anonymous_joe wrote:Four not guilty men. Slightly different.
Anonymity for all is the best scenario given our abysmally poor media buy that's a week justification.
Except in rape cases where it would seem that the accused always has the suspicion of guilt hanging over them whether they’re acquitted or notcamroc1 wrote:Not Guilty = Innocent in the eyes of the law.anonymous_joe wrote:Four not guilty men. Slightly different.
Anonymity for all is the best scenario given our abysmally poor media buy that's a week justification.
The press reported the quotes from Prosecution as facts. Headlines read "Jackson/Olding did...." then 3 paragraphs down, you'd see this was what was claimed.camroc1 wrote:Lads, I fully agree that the accused, just as the accuser, should have anonymity in rape trials.
I just think the trials should be held in public, so that the press can report and the public read, what is being decided, and on what basis, in their names.
Nah, not quite.camroc1 wrote:Not Guilty = Innocent in the eyes of the law.anonymous_joe wrote:Four not guilty men. Slightly different.
Anonymity for all is the best scenario given our abysmally poor media buy that's a week justification.
See mullet - you can never be fully innocent once an accusation is madeanonymous_joe wrote:Nah, not quite.camroc1 wrote:Not Guilty = Innocent in the eyes of the law.anonymous_joe wrote:Four not guilty men. Slightly different.
Anonymity for all is the best scenario given our abysmally poor media buy that's a week justification.
There's a presumption of innocence that is not rebutted, but people often view an acquittal as vindication when it isn't quite the same thing.
Doesn’t matter if other accusers come forward - our judges just give out concurrent sentences apparently so it’s a bit pointlessEverReady wrote:The argument is sound enough. If you made it anonymous other victims might not come forward.
Agree.Mullet 2 wrote:You have a presumption of innocence
So if the court finds you not guilty the presumption stands.
This they were found not guilty not innocent is the most dangerous shít I've heard in years.
But how was the poor solicitor to know that he didn’t have life changing spinal injuries for a tiny dent in a bumperMullet 2 wrote:https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/h ... 48218.html
Another Solicitor hoodwinked
The fraudster will face charges of course
if only there was some way the solicitor could have figured it outGiven you are actually a solicitor that first line is terrifying. Presumption of innocence remains, ergo not guilty=innocent.anonymous_joe wrote:Four not guilty men. Slightly different.
Anonymity for all is the best scenario given our abysmally poor media buy that's a week justification.
Robber apologises to Luas screwdriver attack victim
Lee Murray ‘shocked’ when shown footage of him assaulting early morning commuter
46 minutes ago
Declan Brennan
A man who assaulted a morning commuter on a Luas tram has apologised to the victim.
Lee Murray (23), formerly of Sheepmoor Lawn, Blanchardstown pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to assault of Sam Hess causing him harm. He also admitting producing a screwdriver during the assault on the Luas on November 11st, 2016.
Garda Damien Killala told Gerardine Small BL, defending, that Mr Hess was on his way to work at a building site in the early hours of the morning.
He was on the Luas and heading towards the Rialto stop in south Dublin when Murray and a group of men and women, got on the tram.
They were making a lot of noise and one man approached Mr Hess and asked for a cigarette. Mr Hess offered him the entire packet and the man continued talking to him.
The court heard that Murray then pulled out a flat head screwdriver and grabbed Mr Hess and told him to take out whatever he had in his pockets.
When the victim expressed surprise, Murray pushed the tool into the victim’s knuckle and the hand began “pouring blood”. The group got off the train and Mr Hess got off later and sought medical attention.
He told gardaí later that he was very fearful. A victim impact statement was given to the judge as evidence but not read out in court.
CCTV video footage of the attack was played to the judge on a laptop.
After his arrest Murray said he was very drunk and had taken tablets and the incident was a blur. He was shocked when shown the footage and told gardaí he wanted to apologise to the victim.
Gda Killala said that Murray’s 34 previous convictions include theft, and possession of drugs. Last February he was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment for a firearms offence.
Judge Cormac Quinn adjourned sentencing to February 15th and ordered the production of a report from the Probation Service.
I'm not a solicitor.earl the beaver wrote:Given you are actually a solicitor that first line is terrifying. Presumption of innocence remains, ergo not guilty=innocent.anonymous_joe wrote:Four not guilty men. Slightly different.
Anonymity for all is the best scenario given our abysmally poor media buy that's a week justification.
What in the name of god.he was convinced they were genuine by the fact two of them had failed to get proper medical reports from their treating doctors in England.
danthefan wrote:What in the name of god.he was convinced they were genuine by the fact two of them had failed to get proper medical reports from their treating doctors in England.