|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 26, 2022 15:02:26 GMT
No abuse of process by the court. New evidence became available (IIRC ballistics) and in such circumstances a trial abandoned at magistrates court can be restarted. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 15:51:18 GMT
Where's that quote from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 26, 2022 16:06:00 GMT
The judge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 18:47:45 GMT
Not in the court account you linked to
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 26, 2022 20:27:22 GMT
Not in the court account you linked to No, it was in the abuse of process judgment to which I referred.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 26, 2022 20:34:40 GMT
Justice, what the fuck do you know about justice. Stop talking bollox there's good girl. As part of the Good Friday Agreement the 'British State' pardoned and released from prison 428 IRA terrorists, 143 of whom were serving life for murder or mass murder. During 'the troubles' the IRA murdered 800 soldiers and 2000 civilian men women and children. Where's their justice. You know fuck all. No one was pardoned under the GFA. Many were given 'early release' on licence, BIG difference. And as you have been told countless times, with one unique exception, IRA and UDA and UVF members can still be tried for crimes committed before (and of course after) the GFA that they haven't already been convicted for. Didnt the last labour government send out 200 letters to republicans on the run ( people linked by british intelligence to over 300 murders) telling them they werent being pursued by the then british labour government and that they were effectively pardoned of all crimes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 20:44:46 GMT
Not in the court account you linked to No, it was in the abuse of process judgment to which I referred.
Thanks, will read after the football |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 20:46:37 GMT
No one was pardoned under the GFA. Many were given 'early release' on licence, BIG difference. And as you have been told countless times, with one unique exception, IRA and UDA and UVF members can still be tried for crimes committed before (and of course after) the GFA that they haven't already been convicted for. Didnt the last labour government send out 200 letters to republicans on the run ( people linked by british intelligence to over 300 murders) telling them they werent being pursued by the then british labour government and that they were effectively pardoned of all crimes?
The so called 'letters of comfort' were not pardons and it's been ruled that they are not immunities from prosecution either. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 26, 2022 20:53:52 GMT
Didnt the last labour government send out 200 letters to republicans on the run ( people linked by british intelligence to over 300 murders) telling them they werent being pursued by the then british labour government and that they were effectively pardoned of all crimes?
The so called 'letters of comfort' were not pardons and it's been ruled that they are not immunities from prosecution either. not according to this article...
if i remember correct , the review by lady justice hallet years later couched things in double speak wich amounted to saying the letters werent an amnesty , and there were systematic failures in what blair and the labour government did , but that the scheme was lawfull.
Details of the subsequent 'OTR letters' only became public in February 2014 when a case against suspected IRA bomber John Downey collapsed at the Old Bailey.
He was due to go on trial charged with killing four soldiers in the 1982 IRA Hyde Park bombing. But he cited an official letter he had received in 2007.
It stated: "There are no warrants in existence, nor are you wanted in Northern Ireland for arrest, questioning or charging by police.
"The Police Service of Northern Ireland are not aware of any interest in you by any other police force."
But he had been mistakenly sent the government letter saying he was not wanted for questioning by police.
Mr Justice Sweeney ruled that Mr Downey, who denied any involvement in the bombing, should not be prosecuted because he was given a guarantee he would not face trial.
The full scale of the administrative scheme involving other republican paramilitary suspects then emerged.
An independent review carried out by Lady Justice Hallett found significant systemic failures but concluded that the letters were not an amnesty and the scheme was lawful.
The Northern Ireland Affairs committee separately concluded that it had damaged the integrity of the criminal justice system.
|
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 26, 2022 21:07:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 21:20:44 GMT
Not in the court account you linked to No, it was in the abuse of process judgment to which I referred.
It gets very technical but the judge went deeply into the issues about bringing the case and alleged abuse of process. He correctly IMHO ruled against admissibility of evidence from his Army hearing and correctly IMHO rejected the 3 assertions of No Fair Trial, Legitimate expectation and related matters, the Army Act 1955 conviction and No Case to Answer. While not judging his guilt at that hearing the judge did go somewhat into the issues and in effect demolishes the 'wet hands' defence he tried to rely on at trial while at the same time demolishing any prospect that he could be convicted for anything more than gross negligence manslaughter. I can't see any grounds for appeal on abuse of process grounds. I can see grounds for relatively light sentencing |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 21:24:08 GMT
The so called 'letters of comfort' were not pardons and it's been ruled that they are not immunities from prosecution either. not according to this article...
if i remember correct , the review by lady justice hallet years later couched things in double speak wich amounted to saying the letters werent an amnesty , and there were systematic failures in what blair and the labour government did , but that the scheme was lawfull.
Details of the subsequent 'OTR letters' only became public in February 2014 when a case against suspected IRA bomber John Downey collapsed at the Old Bailey.
He was due to go on trial charged with killing four soldiers in the 1982 IRA Hyde Park bombing. But he cited an official letter he had received in 2007.
It stated: "There are no warrants in existence, nor are you wanted in Northern Ireland for arrest, questioning or charging by police.
"The Police Service of Northern Ireland are not aware of any interest in you by any other police force."
But he had been mistakenly sent the government letter saying he was not wanted for questioning by police.
Mr Justice Sweeney ruled that Mr Downey, who denied any involvement in the bombing, should not be prosecuted because he was given a guarantee he would not face trial.
The full scale of the administrative scheme involving other republican paramilitary suspects then emerged.
An independent review carried out by Lady Justice Hallett found significant systemic failures but concluded that the letters were not an amnesty and the scheme was lawful.
The Northern Ireland Affairs committee separately concluded that it had damaged the integrity of the criminal justice system.
On the contrary that article backs my position. Remember I said there was one very unique exception, the foul up in the Downey case. You might recall that he's tried to use that to escape further legal cases and has failed. They were not pardons, Downey cock-up excepted they did not give immunity from further trials. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 26, 2022 22:01:17 GMT
I can't see any grounds for appeal on abuse of process grounds. I can see grounds for relatively light sentencing
We'll have to wait and see. As I said and for what it's worth, I think the underlined 'and' in [62] is a misrepresentation (obviously not intentional) of Lord Bingham's judgment. Simply from a point of principle, I see the prosecution of offences and the State inextricably linked. Here, the State placed an 18 year old with a weapon capable of firing 750 rounds a minute, virtually unsupervised, in a sangar in times of high tension. The youngster cocks up and the State, now acting in its prosecutorial role tells the youngster he will not be proceeded against for homicide. Thirty odd years go by, and there's a change of political policy. The State changes its mind and proceeds against the man the youngster has now become and hangs him out to dry. Personally, I think it's beyond abuse of process, I think the whole affair stinks. I certainly have sympathy with the family of the victim and they should unquestionably be compensated with the State accepting full responsibility for the incident.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 26, 2022 22:24:54 GMT
Didnt the last labour government send out 200 letters to republicans on the run ( people linked by british intelligence to over 300 murders) telling them they werent being pursued by the then british labour government and that they were effectively pardoned of all crimes?
The so called 'letters of comfort' were not pardons and it's been ruled that they are not immunities from prosecution either. Really ? I thought the chap wanted for murdering a load of bandsmen and horses was allowed to go untried for the very reason that terrorist apologist and saboteur of sports pitches Peter Hain sent him one such get out of retribution letter. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2022 22:30:08 GMT
The so called 'letters of comfort' were not pardons and it's been ruled that they are not immunities from prosecution either. Really ? I thought the chap wanted for murdering a load of bandsmen and horses was allowed to go untried for the very reason that terrorist apologist and saboteur of sports pitches Peter Hain sent him one such get out of retribution letter. You are correct - as the Judge ruled at the time the letter issued by the Labour Government amounted to an amnesty for the Hyde Park attack. |
|
