Gerry is Irelandâs own Whitey Bulger
Conspiracy
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/26/section/71/enacted/en/html
Common design
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/14/section/7/enacted/en/html
Dunno the options re charging him
1 Like
1 Like
Weâll have to form a committee.
1 Like
My understanding is Dowdall still gets him and his family into witness protection programme abroad despite fucking up the entire prosecution case! Itâs some cock up by the guards hinging the entire case on his testimony when they knew early on he couldnât stop lying.
Former Sinn Fein Politician Dowdall is the real winner here, instead of being locked up for another ten years the Irish tax payer is buying him a place in Spain or somewhere and probably paying him a weekly wage as well
1 Like
Hopefully Doncaster.
He wouldnât be safe in Spain anyway youâd think. If heâs even in danger.
Where would you go to avoid Paddy. They are everywhere really. You are probably safer in Doncaster than Madrid
Michael McDowell
There are real questions for DPP over Hutch trial
Sinn FĂ©in must say how suspicions about Dowdall were kept from its public leaders
It is always easy to be wise after the event and for armchair generals in the media and the law to criticise those involved in a major prosecution that results in an acquittal. That said, there are very real questions to be answered in relation to the outcome of the Gerard Hutch murder trial in the Special Criminal Court.
Not all those questions will be answered in public. The DPP is an independent officer of state carrying out the constitutional function of prosecuting alleged criminal offences in the name of the Irish people. The DPP is not under supervision or direction of the Government or the Attorney General and is not answerable to them or in the Oireachtas. The DPPâs decisions are arrived at independently.
Under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, the only formal channel of communication between the DPP and the executive arm of State is set out at section 2(6), which requires the Attorney General and the DPP âto consult together from time to time in relation to matters pertaining to the functions of the Directorâ.
However, there will not be any detailed public accountability in relation to the conduct of the Hutch prosecution. That does not end serious debate about its outcome.
Likewise, the judiciary in the Special Criminal Court are entirely independent and appear to have dealt with the Hutch case correctly and impeccably. As the case went on, many criminal lawyers came to believe that the evidence adduced against Hutch was insufficient in reliability and extent to ground a conviction for direct physical involvement in the Regency Hotel murder on the criminal standard of proof â proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Underlings
Many lay people will be scratching their heads as to how underlings in the Hutch organisation end up convicted for secondary involvement in the murder but no major figures on the Hutch side of the Kinahan/ Hutch sustained murder campaign end up convicted. Especially so, given the finding against a co-accused that he was beyond any reasonable doubt a member of the Hutch criminal organisation and a finding that the firearms used were Hutchâs.
With the benefit of hindsight and with the admittedly imperfect understanding of observation from a legal distance, it suggests that a less ambitious charge against Hutch of involvement in a criminal conspiracy to murder at the Regency Hotel might have succeeded.
There used to be a convention that criminal conspiracy charges were not brought as a failsafe alternative in trials where the accused is tried as a principal for the substantive offence. Whether that convention still exists or not, it does seem to many with experience of the criminal process that a conspiracy charge against Hutch in respect of the Regency Hotel murder would probably have resulted in a conviction and a very heavy sentence.
The problem posed by Hutchâs acquittal for murder is that it very probably extinguishes any chance of a related conspiracy charge being brought or succeeding. The doctrine of double jeopardy would not permit a second outing over the same factual terrain in the hope of securing a conviction for a lesser offence.
Moreover, there is the area of involvement in organised crime. In 2006, I introduced and pushed through the Oireachtas the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Part 7 of that Act created offences of involvement and conspiracy involving organised crime both here and overseas. Those provisions were strengthened in 2009. The Hutch gang described in the Courtâs verdict does seem to fall squarely within the definition of a criminal organisation.
To those who challenge the continuing need for the Special Criminal Court, let us be very clear. To preserve jury trial as the vital constitutional norm in the Irish system of trial for indictable crime, provision must be made to defend us from those who are both capable of and likely to use intimidation of jurors and witnesses to escape justice.
The catalogue of at least 16 savage killings in the Hutch/ Kinahan murder campaigns demonstrates the power and willingness of those involved in organised crime to do anything to prevent their conviction and imprisonment.
Asking ordinary citizens as volunteer jurors to shoulder the burden of ongoing threats to them and their families from paramilitaries and organised crime is simply asking too much.
There are questions for Sinn FĂ©in. The main prosecution witness, Jonathan Dowdall, an associate of Hutch who turned stateâs evidence, was a Sinn FĂ©in councillor up to 2014. Who vetted him? Who proposed his adoption as a candidate? Who approved his selection?
The evidence â particularly the taped recorded conversations between Hutch and Dowdall â shows that senior people in Sinn FĂ©in must have done so. They also suspected his involvement in a gun attack on a Dublin home. What connection had he with the IRA (he claimed to be a member when carrying out a savage torture for which he was later convicted)?
Who in that organisation was important enough to conceal all that from the partyâs public leadership â and from the Irish public?
1 Like
The opening sentence 
1 Like
Using this case as an effort to go after the Special Criminal Court seems odd to me. Surely an acquittal here weakens the argument that it is not a court where a fair trial can be expected?
There does seem to be a rake of questions for the Guards and DPP though.
2 Likes
Is Dowdalls family in the Witness Protection currently to be joined by him whenever he gets out?
Why is dowdall going into the witness protection programme? He was involved and then made up a load of lies and not gets the witness protection programme ? Seems odd to me.
They have to make the programme an incentive to give evidence. People would be less likely to risk it if they were to be turfed back out onto the street if their evidence failed to secure a conviction.
I like McDowell but he was at pains to tell us there is no contact between the DPP and government. I hope for the DPPâs sake that there was political unterference here, youâd hope they werenât so incompetent to bring such a flimsy case.
1 Like