Then the judge will acquit him surely (sorry if i spelt that wrong - i didnt go to boarding school).
Once Celtic beat Rangers i am happy enough.
Hey rock!
Any more about the dipstick in the diplock?
I hear he is getting the chair
To paraphrase Ball Ox:
[size=3]HEY IAMTHELAW - OVER HERE[/size]
Okay, let’s see what we have.
Yes the evidence seems to be flawed. In most cases this seems to be through ineptitude rather than malice on the part of the police, except as regards falsifying the witness statement. However whatever the reason for the evidence being flawed, the fact of it being flawed should be enough to rule it inadmissible.
Would you say that the media silence is necessarily to avoid harming the chances of getting a conviction, as opposed to avoiding harming the accused’s chances of getting a fair trial? The former implies a certain bias on the part of the media which I wouldn’t feel it is fair to assume until we see the media’s conduct after the trial. Generally I would hope that the media comment as little as possible on a matter sub judice, so that by saying nothing until the case is completed they can leave the matters to the court. If Hoey is convicted on this evidence, one would hope for a media outcry, but I think it is only if the media remain silent then that one could conclude that their silence had a particular end in mind.
As relates to the Diplock trials, a judge has more experience than a jury in these matters, and would therefore in theory be able to ignore more easily factors extraneous to the case (media comment, external threats). I can see arguments for using judge-only trials in emotive cases such as these. And as regards the admissibility of the evidence, the judge should be aware of this himself without being told by counsel for the defence, and unless he is biased there should be less chance of inadmissible evidence being considered by a judge than by a jury.
-
Thereboth is the falsifying of the witness statement and the changing of the labels on evidence to suggest it related to a different date. Both of these have been conceded by the prosecution and are indicative of “malice.” I hope that this will result in a major investigation after the case (though I don’t think it’s likely).
-
I’m not suggesting that the media should be commenting on the evidence and the nature of the case at the moment. However they have a duty to report on the case on a daily basis and they aren’t doing this to the degree one would expect, given the incident’s profile. All the colour writers from newspapers in these islands turned up on the first day to describe the courtroom, the defendant, the atmosphere etc. There has been precious little reporting of the facts. I’m not arguing that this is a deliberate attempy to harm Hoey’s chances of getting a fair trial - I am suggesting that the media’s teeth have been blunted by the emotion surrouding the case. There are hugely important discussions points arising from this trial and they are not being raised. (Again, I reiterate I’m not sure they should be debated at present, but in order for an informed debate to occur after the trial it is important that there is complete and accurate reporting of the trial).
-
I think if you asked Sean Hoey if he would prefer to be tried in front of a jury or not then he would choose the former. It is seen as the best measure of justice the world over, and I find it difficult to accept it should be diluted in any circumstances. I think you’re missing the point about inadmissible evidence - it is highly likely that inadmissible evidence entered by the prosecution would be objected to by the defence in advance of it being put before the jury. Therefore the prosecution submit their evidence, the defence object, the judge decides and the jury only hear of the evidence that is admitted. (Much like the Robert Holohan case - these debates would be in closed session). That is infinitely better than a situation where the two sides debate and then the judge decides whether to ignore the evidence or not himself. He can’t help but be affected by it, and by all other courtroom factors no matter how impartial he might be (not always the easiest in the 6 counties I think you’ll agree).
Hey rock, all this will be put before the judge - leave it to him.
To be honest rock, i dont know what relevance this has? Is it possible that the media was not allowed to attend this particular trial (do they still do that law?). What is your point re the media and why are you introducing it to this argument? Arent you trying to argue about the evidence/system of justice (the media argument makes it sound like you are arguing that there is wide conspiracy against this guy); i think you should asses the relevance of this argument before you advance it any further (i would be happy to discuss it with you seperately)
Just because SH would prefer to be tried in front of a jury does not mean that this is the most appropriate way to get justice in this case. I think a jury would be potentially over eager to convict and i dont think he would get a fair trial.
Your point about the evidence and the defense being able to object: It all comes down to the judge. If this Judge (Lets say Judge X); thinks that some or all of the evidence before him is valid he will consider it in his judgement. If Judge X was in charge of a jury based trial he would surely allow the same evidence.
If Judge X thinks that some of the evidence brought before him in the current case was invalid, we have no reason to assume that he will do anything else other than discard it. Similarly Judge X would not allow it to be presented to the jury.
At this point the argument rests with the integrity of judge, agreed?
(Law i think you eluded to some of the above)
On the second point, I think it’s too early to judge the performance of the media in this case. We’ll just have to wait and see whether a proper debate takes place afterward, and I don’t think it’s necessary for all the details to come out now for that debate to be possible later.
On the third point - and I guess it affects the third point too - I think I see what you’re saying about the judge-only trial, that the inadmissible evidence will bear on his decision subconsciously? I still think the peculiar situation in the North provides an argument for judge-only trials, in that a judge - who’s whole life is (in theory at least) the pursuit of justice - will have more interest in making what he regards as the correct decision regardless of personal cost, whereas someone for whom this is just a couple of weeks’ work could be less likely to make a decision that could endanger their personal safety. I’m not saying that it will work like that, just that the argument can be made that the Diplock trials were introduced to improve the fairness of trials rather than to ensure convictions.
so thats games set and match to ball
[quote=iamthelaw ]
On the second point, I think it’s too early to judge the performance of the media in this case. We’ll just have to wait and see whether a proper debate takes place afterward, and I don’t think it’s necessary for all the details to come out now for that debate to be possible later.[/quote]
Fair enough - I know what you’re saying. For the record Ox I’m not saying there is a conspiracy, I just think the trial has been getting precious little coverage, given the high profile case involved. I think the media are reluctant to make headlines out of the inadequacies of the police investigation (To clarify again: I’m not saying impartial media coverage would harm the chances of a conviction, but I think nobody in the media particularly wants to be associated with defending the alleged Omagh bomber).
- I’m sure at the time of their introduction an argument was made that Diplock trials were introduced to imrpove the fairness of trials, however the British government could hardly argue the opposite was the case, could they?
- I think it’s fair to say that non-jury trials are considered less equitable than jury trials.
- I think the key point is that if there was a jury there they would not hear the inadmissible evidence. When there is no jury the judge has to hear the evidence and decide if it’s inadmissible. He cannot help but be affected by that, no matter how impartial he may be.
- You say there is an argument to be made that a Diplock trial could be considered more fair in these particular circumstances: do you agree with that argument?
[quote=Ball Ox ]
Hey rock, all this will be put before the judge - leave it to him.[/quote]
The judge has decided to strike out the evidence - only after he has already heard it though.
[quote=Ball Ox ]
To be honest rock, i dont know what relevance this has? Is it possible that the media was not allowed to attend this particular trial (do they still do that law?). What is your point re the media and why are you introducing it to this argument? Arent you trying to argue about the evidence/system of justice (the media argument makes it sound like you are arguing that there is wide conspiracy against this guy); i think you should asses the relevance of this argument before you advance it any further (i would be happy to discuss it with you seperately)[/quote]
I replied to Law on this already. Not saying there is a media conspiracy (there is definitely a media conspiracy as evidenced by their fabrication and invention of evidence). Just pointing out that the media are giving it precious little coverage which is disappointing - it is a very important case and it raises very important points about justice for people we’d rather not give justice to.
I think I’ve replied to these points when replying to Law also. The point is there are two scenarios possible:
-
A jury-based trial: The judge decides what evidence should be admitted. The jury only hears the admissible evidence so they cannot be affected by the erroneous evidence.
-
A judge-only trial: The judge hears all the evidence and decides what evidence should be admitted. However he is the sole arbitrer of guilt and he has already heard the erroneous evidence. That has to be an inferior system - which is why it is not generally used.
1 & 2. It is not so watertight that there Jury get presented the “perfect” evidence. Lawyers play games to, introducing hearsay and etc.
My point is that there is an equal chance of the judge coming to the wrong conclusion as a result of seeing the erroneous evidence as there is of him allowing tainted evidence to be presented to the jury.
My argument is basic: I trust the system and the judge
On the first two points, when the Diplock trials were introduced, the strength and breadth of paramilitary operations meant that there was a reasonable belief that juries in cases involving terrorist ops could be subject to intimidation - at best - from these, whereas as I’ve argued judges would be less influenced by such fears and more free to make a fair decision. One could also argue that the British government had an interest in jailing as many suspected terrorists as possible and that by having judges - who could possibly be influenced with the promise of honours - in charge of the system they could influence this. Just depends which argument you go for, I think both are reasonable.
I agree with the third point. Perhaps a two-judge system - one ruling on the admissibility of evidence and one hearing only the admissible evidence, this latter making the decision - would have been preferable to a one-judge system, but it’s a moot point at this stage.
On the last point, I referred earlier to “cases such as these” meaning “paramilitary/terrorist cases” but on second thoughts I don’t think the Real IRA are strong & widespread enough to justify a change from the type of court procedures given to any other accused. I think the Diplock trials were justified during the 1980s but no I don’t think the Diplock trial is necessary (and therefore more fair) in the Omagh case. Not for any claims of bias on the part of the judge, but I’d agree that on the admissible evidence point, in a jury trial even if the judge doesn’t catch all inadmissible evidence, if he prevents any of it from being heard by the decision-makers (the jury) it must be superior to a one-judge-only trial.
The jury based trial is not better if the judge has enough integrity to sift through the evidence himself!
Plus we have the benefit of SH likey to get a less emotion driven verdict, but a cold, fact - based legal - based verdict and that lawyers do not get to play with a jury; throwing conjecture this way and implications that way. The judge has told the lawyers to stop reminding him of the state of the evidence - according to rock; therefore he is in charge.
In summary, in this instance I ABSOLUTLEY DISAGREE that the jury based trial would be better.
(I was very interested in the 2 judge notion, and i would conceed that that would be better than a one judge; but not because i believ that there are significant shortcomings from the Dipstick system)
Again, i believe that the judge has no reason to follow anything other than just cause here. DOES ANYONE DISAGREE WITH THIS? PLEASE ANSWER!
(…Because i could argue that this ascertion would be questionable in a jury based trial.)
Besides i think the Irish should stop wallowing in self pity. It wasnt that big of a deal - Omagh, i mean a couple of prodi’s gpt killed. I mean compare it to 9/11 - a real tragedy, not a couple of boggers getting killed. Just lock Hoey up and let ireland get back to its sectarian best.
“I - I - IRA
Fook the queen and the UDA”
Hey there blimpy boy, flying through the sky so fancy free
Found not guilty.
A complete waste of time and money. Interesting to see if heads will roll over this now. The cops that lied will be in trouble now (if it’s investigated properly).
Hoey waves as judge clears him on Omagh charges
20/12/2007 - 16:02:10
A man was cleared today of murdering 29 people in the 1998 Omagh bomb atrocity.
Sean Hoey, 38, from Jonesborough, South Armagh, waved as relatives applauded his acquittal by a judge at Belfast Crown Court.
Mr Justice Weir said the evidence by the prosecution in the case did not meet the required standard.
Hoey was also cleared of a series of other charges linked to a number of bomb and murder attacks on police and military installations across Northern Ireland in the run-up to the Omagh atrocity, which was carried out in August 1998 by dissident republican group the Real IRA.
Hoey, who has been in custody for the last four years, will now be home before Christmas.
His acquittal means that nobody in the North and has yet been convicted of carrying out the single worst terrorist atrocity in more than 30 years of violence.
Hoey, dressed today in a grey and white open-necked shirt and charcoal jacket, was never called to give evidence at any stage during the trial even though he made statements to investigating police claiming that if his DNA was found on any evidence then it was either there innocently, or had been planted by police or some other agency.
Mr Justice Weir took just over an hour and a quarter to deliver his verdict which came at the end of a 36-day trial which finished last January.
He was highly critical of the forensic evidence presented by the prosecution. But he was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that fibres found in glue used to assemble power units could be linked to the accused or to establish, as the prosecution had claimed, common authorship that the one person was involved.
The judge was also highly critical of the process of bagging, labelling and recording of exhibits and hit out at the slapdash approach and cavalier disregard the police and some forensic experts had for the integrity of forensic items.
The judge claimed that two police officers had told untruths in a deliberate attempt to beef up statements and said there had been a deliberate and calculated deception which made it impossible for him to accept their evidence.
Just looking through that thread again - man Ball Ox could be articulate when he wanted to be…
Great to see how ruthless the PSNI have been in tidying up their act. Of the two cops who lied in court (“a deliberate and calculated attempt to mislead” was how the judge put it) one has been relocated within the PSNI and one has remained in his current position.
This is 2 days after the police stood over the Low Copy Number DNA evidence they relied on for the trial despite the lack of international evidence to support its credibility.
Still the main points in the trial were the “splashdash” methodolgies employed by the police (judge’s words) and the fact that two of them lied in court. And nothing changes of course.
Yeah very articulate, I havent heard anyone say “I - I - IRA
Fook the queen and the UDA” in years, had a good laugh at that