It does not say duly authorized in writing.
Clutching at straws here. Heās too gaffe prone to stay clean, but this isnāt the hill to die on
Very true. Now also the left terrified they might be forced to make a decision and held to it are swinging hard left. Promise a few morons pie in the sky that never needs delivering and the pension is in the bag.
You seem to be projecting a lot from the guys who are in power to the guys who are not in power.
Huh? What am I projecting there?
Gas cunts
Section 4 related to official information.
Section 5 relates to confidential information in official contracts which would seem more applicable in the case at hand.
Disclosure of confidential information in official contracts. 5. ā(1) A person who is or has beenā
( a ) a party to a contract with a Minister or State authority or with any person on behalf of a Minister or State authority, or
( b ) employed by such party,
shall not communicate to any third party any information relating to the contract and expressed therein to be confidential.
(2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall take reasonable care to avoid any unlawful communication of such information.
(3) It shall be a good defence to a prosecution for a contravention of this section to prove that the communication was authorised in writing by the Minister or State authority or by the party contracting on behalf of the Minister or State authority
SS3 might give him an outā¦ But he will have to produce the authorisation which was givenā¦
2 Likes
Just when I was beginning to doubt the existence of TFK āexpertiseā. I knew @artfoley and @count_of_monte_crist had a bit about them but even @TheUlteriorMotive is redeeming himself here.
That applies to parties contracting with the State
Also under Section 14 the AG has to authorise the prosecution. .
Leo Leo Leo
You worry about lads investing so much into such things
I donāt think the AG would have an issue of thereās any thing to hang him on.
Morally he did wrong but far too hard to pin on him, so there wonāt be a prosecution hereā¦
Even if there was, it would be āin cameraā, I believeā¦
Be interesting to see how Leo handled himself in the witness box.
I think heād ** have thought of this already if it pertained.
** His taxpayer funded legal and PR teams
In camera only for a spying type trial where State security an issue
The reason Harris was interviewed by Gardai is because he is the only relevant minister who could authorise the leak and make it ok. He has told the Gardai he didnāt. If Leo had the authority under the law then it wouldnāt even be pursued.
1 Like
My mistake.
Will they pin s7 of the 2018 act in him?
Seems to be too hard to prove.
No.
Iād be amazed if heās charged.
He should be, but he wonāt be.
Itās a grey area legally so heāll be fine, but we can all see it for what it is.
5 Likes
I think he will be politically damaged & the axe may well be wielded by his own party .
That sums it up.