He is working for Hiqa below in citygate in Cork at the moment anyway. Saw him eating a sausage roll in Dooks cafe there this morning. He’d be there most mornings eating sausage rolls actually
They’re good sausage rolls I’d say
That tattooed Cork camogie lady accused of assaulting two ladies as per the front page of The Sun today.
She allegedly bate the tar out of two innocent young women, meant to be an awful dirty tramp in the field aswell
One for the snowflakes thread they are already back in work and the two taken to hospital are fine. Gardai in hazmats called out and all
Any excuse to get out of that kip
Have you been hired to generate traffic to the indo?
Graham Dwyer finds out his fate this morning in the High Court.
He was successful. Step 1 of his path to freedom.
There’s a high chance his conviction could now be quashed on appeal?
It would also be very hard for there to be a retrial given how infamous the case is.
Dunno. They have upheld convictions before notwithstanding strong legal reasons to quash them. He is so high profile it will still be an uphill battle.
Can anyone explain to me the reason that this appeal was successful? They used his phone records to prove that he killed someone, but he is claiming his human rights were breached because they used personal data that he did not consent to be given?
Taken from an RTE report -
Mobile phone metadata was an important part of the prosecution case - allowing the prosecution to show where Dwyer’s phone was at certain times.
Gardaí were able to get the information under 2011 legislation brought in following a European Directive.
The legislation obliged service providers to hold on to the data for two years.
But the Directive was declared invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014.
The judge said his declaration of incompatibility with EU law created an obligation on the courts to disapply the law in relevant cases.
But the judge said it was not an automatic consequence that trials would collapse or that convictions would be quashed.
He said Dwyer and others would still have to address the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence.
Mr Justice O’Connor said in these proceedings, Dwyer had only sought declarations which would allow him to make arguments at his appeal about excluding particular evidence.
The judge said it did not automatically follow that the fact that the telephony data used by the prosecution was retained and accessed contrary to EU law, would lead to the quashing of the murder conviction.
The State had argued that the effects of any declaration that the legislation was inconsistent with EU law should apply to future cases only and that the effects of such a declaration should be suspended to allow the Oireachtas to amend the law.
But Mr Justice O’Connor said he had concluded that the legal system in Ireland could allow for an orderly consideration of the retrospective effects of the declarations on the adducing of evidence according to the particular circumstances of each case.
And he said suspending his declaration was not appropriate.
He said the consequences should be determined on a case by case basis and the trial judge as in the prosecution of Graham Dwyer was best placed to determine if it was fair and right to adduce specific evidence.
The judge said Dwyer had not established that the actual operation of the legislation from the time Dwyer’s data was retained in November 2011 to its disclosure in October 2013 was inappropriate, unnecessary or disproportionate.
A date has not yet been set for Dwyer’s appeal against his conviction.
Mr Justice O’Connor said the prospect of anything resembling the dehumanising and unpleasant society portrayed in 1984, led him to say that organs of the State should tread carefully when trenching upon the dignity and privacy of the human person in the sphere of telephony data retention and access.
Just as crime is required to be investigated, he said, there should be transparency of use or abuse of power.
Notification, supervision and enforceable sanctions are means to limit abuses the judge said.
He said the chilling effect on privacy and the rights of free expression and association by actual, feared and mandatory surveillance cannot be underestimated.