# Is Judge Carney right?



## Purple (12 Oct 2007)

What do AAM posters think about the speech made by Judge Carney to the UCC law society?
Personally I agree with every word of it and think the Minister Lenahan should legislate to allow Judges to edit or stop publication of victim impact reports as comments can be made in the privileged environment of the court that might otherwise be libellous. I think his comments should be seen in the context he intended, i.e. not just in the context of the sentence hearing of Wayne O’Donoghue.
We have to decide if we accept the premise that trial by court, with a presumption of innocence where the burden of proof is on the prosecution is what we want or if we want trial by the media/ mob justice where innuendo and conjecture are applicable.


----------



## Trafford (12 Oct 2007)

Yes, I agree also. I was shocked and annoyed at Mrs. Holohan's speech at the time.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Oct 2007)

Technically he may be correct in legal terms but I was genuinely shocked that he chose to make such a public attack on Mrs Holohan, who in my view has suffered enough. The Judge has plenty of other avenues to express his opinions to the powers-that-be.

I believe it was a serious error not to disclose the semen evidence during the O'Donoghue trial. It should have been quite possible to have it disclosed to the jury as a fact material to the case, perhaps with a proviso (maybe agreed by both defence and prosecution) that it was unreliable evidence and should be ignored. The Gardai had obviously and properly appraised the Holohan family on the existence of this evidence, prior to the trial. Its suppression during the trial left a "smoking gun" that would do serious harm to O'Donoghue if it was ever disclosed in the aftermath of the trial. It would not take a genius to realise that this was a real possibility.

Personally, the other inconsistencies and issues raised by Mrs Holohan (in relation to Robert not wearing shoes when he was supposedly riding his bike on the road, and the early-morning phone calls) would worry me more than the dubious "semen" evidence.

Its a bit naive to suggest that Mrs Holohan needed to use the victim impact statement in order to protect herself from libel proceedings had she chosen to make her comments elsewhere, for example in a media statement on the steps of the court. In the aftermath of being jailed for the manslaughter of a child, its hard to believe that O'Donoghue would have been in much of a position to sue anyone (least of all the mother of his victim) for damage to his reputation.

Finally, and on a different note, Judge Carney was a mile wrong, and imho betrayed a certain class bias, when he singled out the tabloid media for the attention they gave to the trial. I happened to be driving for several hours on the day of the verdict and RTE radio & Today FM gave the story wall-to-wall coverage that day, including the "semen" angle.


----------



## Sunny (12 Oct 2007)

I agree with what he was trying to say but I thought he was very insensitive in his choice of language. I have alot of repect for that Judge and he obviously felt very passionate about the issue but I don't think there was any need to come out into a public forum and have a go at the victims family so long after the event. I don't remember him raising it at the time in the media so why drag it into the public domain now?


----------



## Seagull (12 Oct 2007)

If you're going to act on victim statements on the basis of being in a privileged environment, then you also need to start considering what other situations should be changed. Should slanderous remarks mabe in parliament become actionable under law?


----------



## jmayo (12 Oct 2007)

The judge wants the poor guy to be able to rebuild his life when he gets out after his measely 4 years. Lets have a big ahhh.

The Holohan family will never get a chance to rebuild their lives. Anyone that knows a family that have lost a child would know this only too well.
Add to this the fact that their child was killed (I could use a word that would be used to describe the death in some jurisdictions) only adds further pain to this grief. 

It is typical of our judiciary and the soft approach to crime that somebody that takes a life gets all the breaks and the victims get sidelined and almost ignored by the same system.
The judge's comments and the way in which he delivered his criticism were condescending towards the real victims of this crime. 

Is this not also the judge that had to review a case where a rapist was on a suspended sentence?


----------



## micamaca (12 Oct 2007)

jmayo said:


> Is this not also the judge that had to review a case where a rapist was on a suspended sentence?




Yup, that's him...his reason was something on the lines of "he (the rapist) comes from a good family."

I was not impressed with that particular judgement.  

I think a personal attack on someone who had lost their young son under such circumstances is harsh...shows a lack of empathy for the victim. Just my tuppence worth.


----------



## Marathon Man (12 Oct 2007)

> I believe it was a serious error not to disclose the semen evidence during the O'Donoghue trial. It should have been quite possible to have it disclosed to the jury as a fact material to the case, perhaps with a proviso (maybe agreed by both defence and prosecution) that it was unreliable evidence and should be ignored.


It WAS unreliable evidence. That is why it wasn't used.  What purpose would it serve to tell the jury it should be ignored???  If it should be ignored  then, clearly, it shouldn't be given to the jury!


> The Gardai had obviously and properly appraised the Holohan family on the existence of this evidence.


It appears that somebody DID appraise the Holohan family.  Was it proper?  No it wasn't!!  Why? Because it was disclosing material which might have prejudiced the trial and resulted in its collapse - and, furthermore, as the investigation into the semen showed that it could not be relied on, the Holohan family had the further added trauma of coming to terms with all the permutations that the involvement of semen brought up.  I can't even begin to imagine how the Holohan family felt - and continue to feel - when the heard this.



> ....the other inconsistencies and issues raised by Mrs Holohan (in relation to Robert not wearing shoes when he was supposedly riding his bike on the road, and the early-morning phone calls) would worry me more than the dubious "semen" evidence.


  Mrs holohan was not prosecuting O'Donoghue.  Nobody judges in their own case. 

Victim impact statements have helped many towards coming to terms with their particular ordeal.  It now appears, as a result of Mrs Holohan's anguished statement, that victim impact statements may be curtailed in the future.  In my view the long-term good of victims in the Irish judicial system was not well served by Mrs Holohan's heart-felt grief.


----------



## sherib (12 Oct 2007)

Is it not a fact that in our legal system there is a presumption of innocence and that the Prosecution, on behalf of the state, _has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt? _If that is correct then I think Judge Carney was right to say what he did. 

The content of a Victim Impact Statement cannot be allowed to contain new accusations that did not form part of a trial. If this particular V.I.S. remained unchallenged, such accusations could have repercussions in any future criminal trial, the effect of which could be to thwart justice. It can hardly be justice to allow an individual to make an unsustained (and unsustainable in this case based on forensic reports) accusation or allegation at a time when the accused person is precluded from defending him/herself. That to me smacks somewhat of a Kangaroo Court or a Trial by Media, which can hardly benefit a civilised society. While every sympathy and support should be afforded to the Victim’s family, the family of a perpetrator are not guilty of anything. 

In defence of Judge Carney, to be best of my knowledge this case was the first occasion when a V.I.S. departed from being solely an opportunity for a family to describe in public the impact the crime has had on their lives.


----------



## RainyDay (13 Oct 2007)

If the judge has anything to say to Mrs Holohan, he should arrange to meet her face-to-face (maybe with a treasured photograph of Wayne) in his eyeline, and explain to her directly how important his concerns are, relative to the grief of a parent who has lost a child. I wonder if his honour has the cojones to try this approach?


----------



## Marathon Man (13 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> If the judge has anything to say to Mrs Holohan, he should arrange to meet her face-to-face (maybe with a treasured photograph of Wayne) in his eyeline, and explain to her directly how important his concerns are, relative to the grief of a parent who has lost a child. I wonder if his honour has the cojones to try this approach?



C'mon now RainyDay, let's be at least a little bit informed on the matter before commenting.  Mr. Justic Carney, as Adjunct Professor of Law in UCC, was delivering a law lecture to the college law faculty, NOT addressing Mrs Holohan. 

Whatever he might say *to Mrs Holohan* would be said in a court of law, not in any other non-judicial context.  Any explanation of rationale in a case happens only in the courts system.  
The mind boggles at a system where a justice is expected to meet with victims families in a non-judicial setting.  Where would you stop?  Would you want justices to meet with, say the familes of murdered drug barons? Or only in cases where an innocent is involved?  Who decides as to who is an innocent?

At Justice Carney's inaugural lecture, some time ago, he said that there were "two great issues which must be faced:
1  conduct on the part of the victim which might lead to a liability for contempt of court.
2 the building up by the media of selected victims into such an iconic status that other participants, including the judge, are handicapped in the discharge of their independent roles"

In this context Justice Carney was expanding, primarily to interested legals, on his previous lecture.  

As to meeting victims families face-to-face, he does that every time he steps into a courtroom.  ...and yes he does have the balls (aka, as you put it, "cojones") to meet victims families..... and also to face down every manner of criminal each of those days.


----------



## RainyDay (13 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> C'mon now RainyDay, let's be at least a little bit informed on the matter before commenting.  Mr. Justic Carney, as Adjunct Professor of Law in UCC, was delivering a law lecture to the college law faculty, NOT addressing Mrs Holohan.


I'm aware of that. It was cowardly of him to comment in public about Mrs Holohan's statement in the safe environment of a lecture hall. I'd suggest he should have said it to her face first.


----------



## Marathon Man (13 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> I'd suggest he should have said it to her face first.



He *can't* do that while a sitting justice.  It concerns the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. 

As I said previously, "Justice Carney was expanding, *primarily to interested legals*, on his *previous* lecture."   It was *NOT* a public lecture.

Justice Carney referred to four cases during his lecture. The Holohan case was not one of those, however, without quoting the case, he mentioned another, saying " Victim impact evidence achieved its greatest notoriety in a murder trial before me"  - it was clear to all that this was the Holohan case.  

If we follow your arguement that Mrs Holohan should have been spoken to face-to-face first, then the same should apply to victims in every other case mentioned, along with the others on which he spoke.  



> It was cowardly of him to comment in public about Mrs Holohan's statement in the safe environment of a lecture hall.


 On the contrary, it would have been cowardly, and far easier for him to say nothing.

However, you appear to miss the entire point at issue:  *Mrs Holohan departed from a victim impact statement which she composed, or was composed on her behalf, to which she **voluntarily **agreed, and in this departure, she proposed as "evidence" matters which were NOT evidence in the case.*  That is the issue NOT whether she should have been consulted.


----------



## RainyDay (14 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> He *can't* do that while a sitting justice.  It concerns the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.



Please continue - I'd be fascinated to hear a full explanation of why he can't meet a participant in one of his past cases. I'm not a legal expert, but I can't see any relevance of 'seperation of powers' on this issue.


Marathon Man said:


> As I said previously, "Justice Carney was expanding, *primarily to interested legals*, on his *previous* lecture."   It was *NOT* a public lecture.


This is the kind of 'angels dancing on heads of pins' rubbish that seems to be hugely significant in the legal world, but have no relevance in the real world. Unless his honour is a total gombeen, he would have been well aware that his comments would be made public and would cause substantial hurt and offence.


----------



## Purple (14 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> This is the kind of 'angels dancing on heads of pins' rubbish that seems to be hugely significant in the legal world, but have no relevance in the real world. Unless his honour is a total gombeen, he would have been well aware that his comments would be made public and would cause substantial hurt and offence.


The legal system has to be based on factual evidence which the prosecution thinks has a reasonable chance of standing up in court. 
The semen evidence was looked at by the DPP and found not to be reliable. We cannot convict on conjecture, we cannot convict on emotional grounds and we cannot convict on evidence that has been shown to be flawed.
The perception of the irrefutability of DNA evidence is deeply concerning as it can be used by the prosecution as a "silver bullet". I think the DPP was aware of this as was seeking the truth as opposed to seeking a conviction of any sort.
This is not "'angels dancing on heads of pins' rubbish", it is what safeguards us against mob justice. It protects us from a jury convicting or acquitting based on how they feel about the people involved, their own biases about those people and their sense of outrage at an appalling crime. Reginald Rose’s play 12 Angry Men is a masterful study of this.

So why did Judge Carney speak now and not then? He answered this himself, he said that he wanted to say something sooner but didn’t as he knew that when he did it would cause upset to the family.
It has been established in law that Wayne O'Donoghue is a child killer. He has to live with that. It is not OK to insinuate that he is also a paedophile. The reason for this is that if it’s OK to accuse him then it’s OK to accuse anyone. 
The court room has to be a rather cold and dispassionate place. It has to be such so that logic and fact are used to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused and base tabloid sensationalism, which firmly occupies the realm of emotion, is not allowed to influence the process. 
If you are not sure what happens when emotion and shock are allowed to influence the police, the state prosecution service and/or the courts then ask the Guilford four or Birmingham six.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Oct 2007)

Forget all this semen stuff. What really gets me is the hugely sympathetic approach of JC to WOD. "Just a bit of horseplay gone wrong, Mrs H ruined my chance to rehabilitate WOD". JC' main objective in sentencing would appear to be rehabilitaing WOD rather than punishing him, he surely does not expect Mrs. H to share that objective.

Let's consider what we do know. WOD killed that kid, went to extreme and callous lengths to conceal the body. Stopped off for a mineral whilst the body was in the boot. Watched a video with the girlfriend after he had dumped the body. "Helped" in the search and assured Mrs H Robert would be found safe and well.

Just a little horseplay gone wrong, indeed?

Even the DPP thought the sentence was too low. We now know why it was too low, JC had taken the hump at Mrs H audacity in "abusing" his court.  JC really has taken the Mrs H thing far too personally for me to think he is still objective on the point (he walked out of a Mass she was attending).

The DPP appeal probably failed because the legal institutions were in JC' camp and also possibly out of not wishing to be seen to be influenced by the tabloids.

Were the tabloids wrong? On the more lurid headlines, yes. But in getting WOD a "heavier" penalty than our "justice" system was able to deliver, they performed a service.


----------



## Marathon Man (14 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Please continue - I'd be fascinated to hear a full explanation of why he can't meet a participant in one of his past cases. I'm not a legal expert, but I can't see any relevance of 'seperation of powers' on this issue.


Sorry RainyDay - you'd need to do Law 101 and we'd lock up the AAM site in doing that here.



> This is the kind of 'angels dancing on heads of pins' rubbish that seems to be hugely significant in the legal world, but have no relevance in the real world.


 ???? I don't know what you intend by this.



> Unless his honour is a total gombeen, he would have been well aware that his comments would be made public


 Agreed! The manner and location of JC's comments on the case are one of the few means available for the Judiciary to feed back into the system, given the Separation of Powers - see first point.



> and would cause substantial hurt and offence.


 I strongly suspect that *ANY* reference to the matter by *ANYBODY* is going to be a source of hurt for the Holohan family *FOREVER*.  The hurt, loss, anguish and grief will *NEVER* go away.  Coping is a taking one day at a time.

btw, Purple has put the matter very well.  Harchibald might do well to note, in particular, the last two lines of Purple's post.


----------



## TreeTiger (14 Oct 2007)

I can't see why it was wrong of Mrs Holohan to bring up the semen issue in her Victim Impact Statement.  As I understand it, such a statement is so that a person affected by a crime can state how their life has been affected by this crime.

If a mother has lost her child in the way Mrs Holohan did, and finds out that semen was found on her child's body, but this issue is not resolved in the course of the killer's trial, this knowledge surely has to make the impact of the crime even worse.

Perhaps the fact that the media had a field day with this information was not fair on O'Donoghue (not that I have much sympathy for him), but that wasn't Mrs Holohan's fault, and I think Judge Carney was entirely out of order to hold her responsible.


----------



## RainyDay (14 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> Sorry RainyDay - you'd need to do Law 101 and we'd lock up the AAM site in doing that here.


This is patronising and evasive. There is a fairly well established tradition round these parts that if you are going to make such claims as being a matter of fact, you need to stand them up and show evidence. Few readers are likely to give your claims of fact credibility without this. 



Marathon Man said:


> ???? I don't know what you intend by this.


See explanation below.


Marathon Man said:


> Agreed! The manner and location of JC's comments on the case are one of the few means available for the Judiciary to feed back into the system, given the Separation of Powers - see first point.


If this is one the few means, I would suggest that any other of the few means would be preferable. If the judge genuinly doesn't have means to 'feed back', then perhaps he should be focusing his campaigning and public comments on the lack of a feedback channel, rather than on Mrs Holohan's comments in the most challenging of circumstances.



Purple said:


> This is not "'angels dancing on heads of pins' rubbish", it is what safeguards us against mob justice. It protects us from a jury convicting or acquitting based on how they feel about the people involved, their own biases about those people and their sense of outrage at an appalling crime. Reginald Rose’s play 12 Angry Men is a masterful study of this.
> 
> So why did Judge Carney speak now and not then? He answered this himself, he said that he wanted to say something sooner but didn’t as he knew that when he did it would cause upset to the family.





My comment about angels and heads of pins was in relation to the text I quoted above this comment, i.e. the distinction which Marathon Man was drawing between public and private events. While this may well be technically correct, it is clearly completely irrelevant to the Holohans. His Honour must have known that his comments would be widely reported, and would cause extreme pain to the Holohans.

The comment that "he wanted to say something sooner but didn’t as he knew that when he did it would cause upset to the family" is bewildering. Could he possibly think that the pain of losing a child in these circumstances has been eased substantially in the relatively short time since the incident occured, particularly as we are now approaching the point where the killer may well be released on parole.

You will note that I haven't made any comment on the substantive issue of the eligibility of this evidence. I really feel I don't know enough about this case to comment sensibly on this.


----------



## Marathon Man (14 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> This is patronising and evasive. There is a fairly well established tradition round these parts that if you are going to make such claims as being a matter of fact, you need to stand them up and show evidence. Few readers are likely to give your claims of fact credibility without this.


OK I can see how you might feel that way, my point was that one MUST understand the Separation of Powers if one is going to engage in informed debate on the matter.

The Separation of Powers relates to the relationship between the Legislature (Dail), the Executive (Governmant) and the Judiciary.  To explain it here would take an awful long time.  However to understand what the judiciary may and may not do one really does have to understand the Separation of Powers. [BTW, the Separation of Powers was one of the prime, if not THE prime difficulty in the Judge Curtin case.]  See here for a brief explanation of Separation of Powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers




> If this is one the few means, I would suggest that any other of the few means would be preferable. If the judge genuinly doesn't have means to 'feed back', then perhaps he should be focusing his campaigning and public comments on the lack of a feedback channel, rather than on Mrs Holohan's comments in the most challenging of circumstances.


 See Separation of Powers as to why he can't campaign.



> You will note that I haven't made any comment on the substantive issue of the eligibility of this evidence. I really feel I don't know enough about this case to comment sensibly on this.


With the very greatest of respect, this is what this debate is about.  To reduce it to a simple "should he have respect for the privacy of the Holohans" simply doesn't wash. 

btw.  I understand that there was an article on the matter, in relation to introducing legislation curtailing Victim Impact Statements, on the News at One on RTE today.  I didn't hear it but I will be reading it.   To quote my own post 





> Victim impact statements have helped many towards coming to terms with their particular ordeal. It now appears, as a result of Mrs Holohan's anguished statement, that victim impact statements may be curtailed in the future. In my view the long-term good of victims in the Irish judicial system was not well served by Mrs Holohan's heart-felt grief.


----------



## RainyDay (14 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> OK I can see how you might feel that way, my point was that one MUST understand the Separation of Powers if one is going to engage in informed debate on the matter.
> 
> The Separation of Powers relates to the relationship between the Legislature (Dail), the Executive (Governmant) and the Judiciary.  To explain it here would take an awful long time.  However to understand what the judiciary may and may not do one really does have to understand the Separation of Powers. [BTW, the Separation of Powers was one of the prime, if not THE prime difficulty in the Judge Curtin case.]  See here for a brief explanation of Separation of Powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers


OK - so take it that I understand seperation of powers (as I did before your explanation, btw). So now explain why seperation of powers makes it OK for the his honour to make broadly critical statements about Mrs Holohan's actions in a effectively-public forum, but not OK for him to meet Mrs Holohan face to face (as you suggested above)?


Marathon Man said:


> See Separation of Powers as to why he can't campaign.


So he can't campaign about feedback loops, but he can make campaigning speeches about the content of victim impact statements - why the distinction?


Marathon Man said:


> With the very greatest of respect, this is what this debate is about.  To reduce it to a simple "should he have respect for the privacy of the Holohans" simply doesn't wash.


My comments on this thread have been about his honour's decision to go public now on this matter. That is the issue which affected the Holohans. You (and his honour) might want to forget about this impact, but that doesn't make it go away.


----------



## angela59 (14 Oct 2007)

If you or I lost a son or daughter in similar circumstances I wonder how we would feel.  It is easy to talk when it hasn't happened to any of us, but when the shoe is on the other foot and it is your son or daughter that died on account of "horseplay" God knows how you or I would react!.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> As I said previously, "Justice Carney was expanding, *primarily to interested legals*, on his *previous* lecture."   It was *NOT* a public lecture.



Really? Remember, Judge Carney released copies of his speech to the media beforehand.



RainyDay said:


> This is the kind of 'angels dancing on heads of pins' rubbish that seems to be hugely significant in the legal world, but have no relevance in the real world. Unless his honour is a total gombeen, he would have been well aware that his comments ... would cause substantial hurt and offence.



I agree.


----------



## Purple (15 Oct 2007)

angela59 said:


> If you or I lost a son or daughter in similar circumstances I wonder how we would feel.  It is easy to talk when it hasn't happened to any of us, but when the shoe is on the other foot and it is your son or daughter that died on account of "horseplay" God knows how you or I would react!.


 I can tell you how I would react. I would do everything I could to take the culprit to a quiet place dredge the darkest corners of my mind to find ways to kill him as slowly and painfully as possible. I wouldn't really care of there were extenuating circumstances, I wouldn't even care if there was a reasonable doubt about his guilt. That's why I would not be allowed to sit in judgement on the accused. That's why emotion has no place in the court room. That's why comments like; _"I can't see why it was wrong of Mrs Holohan to bring up the semen issue in her Victim Impact Statement. As I understand it, such a statement is so that a person affected by a crime can state how their life has been affected by this crime." _have to be looked at and brought to their logical conclusion, i.e. if Mrs Holohan can bring these things up then any evidence in any case that the DPP thinks is unreliable, or the judge has ruled as inadmissible, can be brought up in court. To put it another way; the same rules and standards have to apply to all cases which are held in open court.


----------



## shnaek (15 Oct 2007)

Harchibald said:


> Were the tabloids wrong? On the more lurid headlines, yes. But in getting WOD a "heavier" penalty than our "justice" system was able to deliver, they performed a service.



Not a service that a civilised society can have much regard for, though. They provide this 'service' to sell papers. Society needs to be aware of the dangers of tabloid journalism, whose aim in the main is to sell papers, to thrill or entertain - but not to tell the boring truth. Our society will not amount to much if we rely on tabloid media instead of the courts of justice to sit and judge us.


----------



## MrMan (15 Oct 2007)

She abused her rights and issued statements as fact, i.e there is no conclusive evidence about semen. Just the mention of semen turned the tide against WOD a notch from killer to potential paedophile and this has coloured alot of views of this young man. I have no expert knowledge on law, but I can speak as a member of the public who feels that this case exploited by the media because WOD was from a 'good' background - how many murders and rapes receive such coverage. I feel that the judge was right in this case with his statement.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Oct 2007)

MrMan said:


> there is no conclusive evidence about semen.



My understanding is that the presence of semen was verified conclusively. The problem arose with determining the origin of the semen found.

If you read Mrs Holohan's statement, you will not find any untruths there.


----------



## Sunny (15 Oct 2007)

MrMan said:


> She abused her rights and issued statements as fact, i.e there is no conclusive evidence about semen. Just the mention of semen turned the tide against WOD a notch from killer to potential paedophile and this has coloured alot of views of this young man. I have no expert knowledge on law, but I can speak as a member of the public who feels that this case exploited by the media because WOD was from a 'good' background - how many murders and rapes receive such coverage. I feel that the judge was right in this case with his statement.


 
This 'young man' still killed her son. I am not sure making him out to be a paedophile made the public think any less of him than they already did. And the media didn't 'exploit' the case because of his background. It was such a big story due to his actions afterwards. People just couldn't understand it. As Justice Carney himself said in his sentencing remarks

After the death, the cover-up was appalling. There can be no excusing what was done. There can be no mitigating of what was done. The cover-up caused incredible grief and distress to the Holohan family. It permitted of the body being mutilated by animals, it tied up the emergency services of the State over a protracted period and caused the people of Ireland as a whole to join in the Holohans' grief. It cannot be dismissed as being due to panic, by reason of the calculation and deliberation involved.

I don't think she was right to make the comments in her victim impact statement either but I also don't think WOD was hard done by when she said it. At least he can have some form of life somewhere after his sentance no matter what the public think of him.


----------



## Marathon Man (15 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> So now explain why seperation of powers makes it OK for the his honour to make broadly critical statements about Mrs Holohan's actions in a effectively-public forum, but not OK for him to meet Mrs Holohan face to face (as you suggested above)?


This debate started on the topic of whether Justice Carney was right or not. Your arguments all appear to be founded on your contention that JC should meet Mrs Holohan face-to-face. 
Setting aside all protocols and precedents, what purpose do you think such a meeting would serve? You appear to think Mrs Holohan is entitled to consulattion on a matter of legal importance (accepting always that it does concern her as the mother of the victim and, by extension, a victim herself.)    

Sidetracking the issue into a debate on the intricacies of the Separation of Powers is something that you can debate on another thread, if you wish. I prefer to stay on topic on this one.



> So he can't campaign about feedback loops, but he can make campaigning speeches about the content of victim impact statements - why the distinction?


JC made little other reference to the case than was made by Justice Macken in the Court of Criminal Appeal:
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...199d98ef9ccbd3398025720b004d2bf7?OpenDocument



> "It is the view of this court that in the event a sentencing judge, in his or her discretion, permits such a victim impact statement to be made, such a statement should only permitted on strict conditions. In particular, a copy of the intended victim impact statement should be submitted both to the sentencing judge and to the legal representatives of the accused, it being assumed that it will already have been made available to the prosecution. This must be done in advance of the reading or making of the statement itself in court so that both the sentencing judge and the accused’s legal representatives may have the opportunity of ensuring that it contains nothing untoward.
> .......
> While great sympathy must undoubtedly exist for the person making the victim impact statement, every effort must also be made to ensure that the statement is not used to undermine the proper role of the prosecution in a trial, nor to seek to place in the public domain unfounded or unproven allegations against a convicted person who is awaiting sentence. It is essential therefore to circumscribe the delivery or making of such victim impact statement. The uncontrolled addition of material perceived by the maker of the statement to exist, or allegedly existing, such as appears to have occurred in the present case outside that presented by the prosecution, which is charged with bringing all appropriate material to the attention of the jury, could lead to an unacceptable interference in the proper prosecution of criminal offences, as well as to very significant damage to a convicted person awaiting sentence."


 

Is there any suggestion that the CCA should meet victims?? 



> My comments on this thread have been about his honour's decision to go public now on this matter. That is the issue which affected the Holohans. You (and his honour) might want to forget about this impact, but that doesn't make it go away.


 
There was little furore when the CCA made its judgement in the case. The media created an unnecessary frenzy - see Purple's analysis for comment on this. As regards my "wanting to forget about this impact", you clearly haven't read my closing lines in both posts yesterday.



> You will note that I haven't made any comment on the substantive issue of the eligibility of this evidence. I really feel I don't know enough about this case to comment sensibly on this.


 
Perhaps you might take a bit of time to read the judgement of the CCA, along with JC's script from last week and see what they both have in common and also how they differ.


----------



## MrMan (15 Oct 2007)

> The problem arose with determining the origin of the semen found.


Which is quite a problem, when the implications put forward are thatthe origins were there throught he improper actions of WOD.



> I am not sure making him out to be a paedophile made the public think any less of him than they already did



It would definietly colour peoples views. Yes he paniced and made things a hell of a lot worse for all involved, but to say he may have abused the child would make him a monster instead of a seemingly normal young man who brought this misfortune upon himself. 



> And the media didn't 'exploit' the case because of his background. It was such a big story due to his actions afterwards. People just couldn't understand it.



I believe that they couldn't understand it because of his background and how normal he appeared, if he was from a disadvantaged area they could write about his poor background drug problem etc, but this normal looking kid let us know that such tradgey could be close to us all, it was the perfect case for the media because fear sells as much as anything else.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Oct 2007)

MrMan said:


> She abused her rights and issued statements as fact, i.e there is no conclusive evidence about semen.
> 
> _The problem arose with determining the origin of the semen found._
> 
> Which is quite a problem, when the implications put forward are that the origins were there throught he improper actions of WOD.



The fact remains that Mrs Holohan's statement did *not* include any misstatements or untruths.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Oct 2007)

MrMan said:


> It would definietly colour peoples views. Yes he paniced and made things a hell of a lot worse for all involved, but to say he may have abused the child would make him a monster instead of a seemingly normal young man who brought this misfortune upon himself.



Apparently it is now a bigger sin to sexually exploit a child than to kill them, hide their body, attempt to burn the remains and then to make false insinuations against their parents.


----------



## Marathon Man (15 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> The fact remains that Mrs Holohan's statement did *not* include any misstatements or untruths.


 
Court of Criminal Appeal:



> The uncontrolled addition of material perceived by the maker of the statement to exist, or allegedly existing, such as appears to have occurred in the present case outside that presented by the prosecution, which is charged with bringing all appropriate material to the attention of the jury, could lead to an unacceptable interference in the proper prosecution of criminal offences, as well as to very significant damage to a convicted person awaiting sentence.


----------



## MrMan (15 Oct 2007)

> Apparently it is now a bigger sin to sexually exploit a child than to kill them, hide their body, attempt to burn the remains and then to make false insinuations against their parents



Sexual abusers of children tend to be considered the lowest form of life at least that is what I contend. Even through the eyes of criminals sexual crimes are rated as the most heinous especially against children. The other matter in this case is that it would seem that there was a brother like relationship between the two and the death of Robert did seem to be a freak accident or at the very least accidental.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Oct 2007)

MrMan said:


> The other matter in this case is that it would seem that there was a brother like relationship between the two...



Not according to the dead child's parents, at any rate.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Oct 2007)

posted twice


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Oct 2007)

shnaek said:


> Not a service that a civilised society can have much regard for, though. They provide this 'service' to sell papers. Society needs to be aware of the dangers of tabloid journalism, whose aim in the main is to sell papers, to thrill or entertain - but not to tell the boring truth. Our society will not amount to much if we rely on tabloid media instead of the courts of justice to sit and judge us.


 
Okay, snake, it did jar with me to give the Tabloids any credit.

I notice Catherine McGuinness has given my line - JC too obsessed with rehabilitation. She also rapped his knuckles for his behaviour.


----------



## MrMan (15 Oct 2007)

> Not according to the dead child's parents, at any rate.



Just the reporting newspapers then. The facts of the case are few and the observations are many as can be seen throught he differing points of view of everyday people, which is why the vis should not have crossed over to the 'facts' as Mrs Holohan saw them.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Oct 2007)

MrMan said:


> ... the 'facts' as Mrs Holohan saw them.



what *exactly* did Mrs Holohan say that was not fact?


----------



## Sunny (15 Oct 2007)

Instead of trying to censor a victims statement, why not allow a victim to have their full say but do it in camera so it doesn't become a matter of public record. Surely the only people that need to hear the victim impact statement is the sentencing judge and the accused. It sounds like in this case, the mother felt like her son was not getting the justice he deserved and she wanted to make the court aware of her feelings. Our legal system should be humane enough to allow for this while also protecting whatever rights the convicted person has.


----------



## Purple (15 Oct 2007)

Sunny said:


> Instead of trying to censor a victims statement, why not allow a victim to have their full say but do it in camera so it doesn't become a matter of public record. Surely the only people that need to hear the victim impact statement is the sentencing judge and the accused. It sounds like in this case, the mother felt like her son was not getting the justice he deserved and she wanted to make the court aware of her feelings. Our legal system should be humane enough to allow for this while also protecting whatever rights the convicted person has.


 As far as I know that is exactly what is being proposed. I have a high opinion of the Minister for Justice, he is a barrister and has shown a good level of reasoned compassion in the past and I think this is the sort of thing that he is looking at from a legislative perspective; that the victim impact statement is heard in camera and the judge has the power to rule that some or all of it cannot be reported. I think this is a fair solution.
The old maxim that hard cases make bad laws holds true here. What is the mother of one of the two men who were shot dead in the attempted post office raid named the police man that shot her son? What if she, through her sons contacts, found out where he and his family lived. If a court found that the police officer in question had acted improperly, thus conferring the badge of victim on her son, would it be Ok for her it offer all of that information in open court without the judge having recourse to restrict the reporting of those facts? Ah, but that's different! Yes, but the next time it might not be quite so different, and the next time and the next. That's the issue here, not the grief of mother.


----------



## MrMan (15 Oct 2007)

> what exactly did Mrs Holohan say that was not fact?



Did she not ask why semen was found on her childs body? AFAIK It hasn't been conclusively found that there was, or at least that it had any significance. Her facts as I referred to were to would seem to suggest WOD had sexual contact with the boy


----------



## sydthebeat (15 Oct 2007)

This probably has been mentioned before but.....

Because something is inelligible to be put forward as evidence in a case, because of legal standing, does not mean it doesnt exist...

It is widely known that DPP will argue a lesser crime that is watertight, rather than push for the greater charge with a less watertight case.... 

I have seen first hand, in an 'in camera' case, what can and cannot be given as evidence... in one case the whole primary interview with the accused had to be thrown out because the gardi fecked up the process of reading him his rights........ valuable information which the accused gave and later contradicted could not be given in evidence..... 

personally i have no faith in the legal system, its there to be played like a game, when both victims and accused are the pawns...


----------



## RainyDay (15 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> This debate started on the topic of whether Justice Carney was right or not. Your arguments all appear to be founded on your contention that JC should meet Mrs Holohan face-to-face.
> Setting aside all protocols and precedents, what purpose do you think such a meeting would serve? You appear to think Mrs Holohan is entitled to consulattion on a matter of legal importance (accepting always that it does concern her as the mother of the victim and, by extension, a victim herself.)
> 
> Sidetracking the issue into a debate on the intricacies of the Separation of Powers is something that you can debate on another thread, if you wish. I prefer to stay on topic on this one.


This post has got to be a case-study in evasion. I'm wondering if you are a politician or perhaps even a barrister by day. 

You brought up the issue of 'separation of powers'. You have tried to bluster your way out of explanation how separation of powers is relevant here. Unless you can provide a clear explanation of the relevance (if any) to separation of powers, I would suggest that you withdraw this spurious claim to let the discussion move on and focus on the important issues.



Marathon Man said:


> JC made little other reference to the case than was made by Justice Macken in the Court of Criminal Appeal:
> http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...199d98ef9ccbd3398025720b004d2bf7?OpenDocument


Again, the evasion. My query was not about Justice Macken or the CCA. It was about your claim that the judge cannot campaign, in the light of his campaigning speech. If you have no answer as to why the Judge can make a campaigning speech but can't campaign, perhaps you could just clarify this, rather than trying to steer the discussion elsewhere.


----------



## Purple (15 Oct 2007)

RainyDay, do you accept that the victim impact statement could, under some circumstances, be used to unjustly blacken the name of a person that has been found guilty of a crime? If yes do you think it would be a good idea to limit in some way how the statement is reported?
I accept that Judge Carney has caused hurt to the family of Robert Holohan. I don’t think he could have avoided causing hurt when discussing his concerns around this case. 
As far as I know the separation of powers means that a politician cannot directly lobby a member of the judiciary in order to influence the outcome of a case as that is a judicial function. The same goes the other way; a judge cannot lobby a politician in order to influence a legislative change. Both politicians and judges are allowed to talk about cases or laws in a suitable context but not in a forum that serves no function other than to air their views. I am not a lawyer and have never studied law so I don’t know what precedents or laws constitute this framework but given that we do, as we all agree, subscribe to the principle of separation of powers it follows that it is inappropriate for either branch to seek to interfere with the decision making process of the other, either overtly or by seeking to influence public opinion.

So could Judge Carney not have just written to a paper or given an interview, after all he was just voicing his concerns about how the courts work? Probably, but remember that he lives in a world of precedent. Throughout his whole professional life it has set the boundaries within which he work and the practice of giving lectures to the law society of their alma mater is an established precedent whereas there is none for giving an interview to the Irish Times. Either way does anyone think that the Holohan family would have been any less upset by a letter to a paper? Does anyone think that an open letter which addressed Mrs Holohan directly would have been a better idea?


----------



## Marathon Man (16 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> You brought up the issue of 'separation of powers'. You have tried to bluster your way out of explanation how separation of powers is relevant here. Unless you can provide a clear explanation of the relevance (if any) to separation of powers, I would suggest that you withdraw this spurious claim to let the discussion move on and focus on the important issues.


As I said before, the issue of the Separation of Powers, is complex and requires FAR more space on this thread than available - I reckon most viewers would move on before finishing the FIRST page. As I said in my previous post, I am NOT interested in getting into a discussion on the SoP on this board. My interst in this thread is, as stated previously, on the original topic. Start YOUR own thread on SoP and I may join in.....when this (original) thread is debated a bit more.

As Purple explains : 





> separation of powers means that a politician cannot directly lobby a member of the judiciary in order to influence the outcome of a case as that is a judicial function. The same goes the other way; a judge cannot lobby a politician in order to influence a legislative change. Both politicians and judges are allowed to talk about cases or laws in a suitable context but not in a forum that serves no function other than to air their views


The Judiciary does NOT campaign in public. JC's lecture was to a Law Faculty lecture. Such a forum does NOT constitute campaigning in PUBLIC. Btw, while I disagree with Catherine McGuinness' argument on the topic, she also provides some insight as to why the Judiciary cannot "campaign", as you put it.



> Again, the evasion. My query was not about Justice Macken or the CCA. It was about your claim that the judge cannot campaign, in the light of his campaigning speech. If you have no answer as to why the Judge can make a campaigning speech but can't campaign, perhaps you could just clarify this, rather than trying to steer the discussion elsewhere.


I beg to differ. I believe that I, along with others, have provided sufficient reason as to why. If you want to get into a shouting match, off you go.
wrt, steering the discussion elsewhere, it is YOU that is attempting to steer the issue off track. 

You want to ignore Justice Macken's judgement, in the CCA? Why? It is highly relevant to what we, the rest of us anyway, have been discussing here! Have you read it? Do you disagree with it? 

My issue with you was, and is, your assertion (13 Oct - #10, 13 Oct - #12) that JC should meet Majella Holohan face-to-face, along with your assertion that the lecture was public. In the extremely unlikely event that it were to happen, I am at a loss as to what practical purpose the meeting would serve either party? I have already answered the second point.

I note also that, with the exception of your first post, which, imho, was more like a tabloid rant - please note your last line (I referred to it in a previous post), YOU have NOT commented on the issue of the thread topic, but snipe, without providing counter arguement.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> The Judiciary does NOT campaign in public. JC's lecture was to a Law Faculty lecture.



...with TV cameras present and copies of his speech delivered in advance to all interested media outlets.

If that's not "in public", God knows what is...


----------



## Sunny (16 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> As Purple explains :
> The Judiciary does NOT campaign in public. JC's lecture was to a Law Faculty lecture. Such a forum does NOT constitute campaigning in PUBLIC. Btw, while I disagree with Catherine McGuinness' argument on the topic, she also provides some insight as to why the Judiciary cannot "campaign", as you put it.


 
This is a legal cop out by saying that lecturing to a law faculty is not public campaigning. The fact that he was making the keynote speech was made public, the first draft of his speech was then faxed to the different media outlets. These outlets were then informed that the draft was being changed and they received a new one where some of the more controversial language was removed. He knew and the law faculty knew that this was going into the public domain. So to say that the Judiciary cannot and did not campaign in public is wrong. If that is the case, then I think Judge Carney broke the law!!


----------



## room305 (16 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> The Judiciary does NOT campaign in public. JC's lecture was to a Law Faculty lecture. Such a forum does NOT constitute campaigning in PUBLIC. Btw, while I disagree with Catherine McGuinness' argument on the topic, she also provides some insight as to why the Judiciary cannot "campaign", as you put it.



I thought Judge Carney sent out press releases before the lecture? Sounds very much like he wanted to provoke public debate on the issue.

EDIT: Post crossed with Sunny & Ubiquitous


----------



## Marathon Man (16 Oct 2007)

Sunny said:


> This is a legal cop out by saying that lecturing to a law faculty is not public campaigning.


 Maybe it is a cop-out. It wasn't public, however I'm not denying that he did not/expect that it was going to be made public. I'm absolutely sure he knew that it would be made public. However, the lecture was to a legal faculty. This is a lot different to, say a public meeting or a media program. The intent (I presume) was to influence LEGAL, NOT public opinion. He certainly has galvanised public opinion!



> The fact that he was making the keynote speech was made public The first draft of his speech was then faxed to the different media outlets. These outlets were then informed that the draft was being changed and they received a new one where some of the more controversial language was removed. He knew and the law faculty knew that this was going into the public domain.


I am not aware of exactly how the text of his speech came into the public domain, so can't comment on that aspect. However I would be very surprised if he or someone else, on his, or the faculty's behalf, intentionally put a draft, in particular, into the public domain prior to the lecture. 

With regard to removing "some of the more controversial language", this is the first I've heard of that. Can you let us know where we can find a copy of that draft or otherwise reference it? Such a draft would have a MAJOR bearing on the debate both here and elsewhere. I, for one, would be very interested in reading it.


----------



## Sunny (16 Oct 2007)

http://www.independent.ie/national-...h-on-holohan-case-at-last-minute-1166558.html


And this isn't public campaigning????


----------



## Marathon Man (16 Oct 2007)

Sunny said:


> http://www.independent.ie/national-...h-on-holohan-case-at-last-minute-1166558.html


 
Just googled and found that one. Will read later. I'd like to see the full draft though, if anyone can reference it.


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2007)

The substantive issue is still not being addressed here; was the Judge correct to raise concerns that victim impact statements can be used to influence the publics opinion of a convicted party by introducing information about that party which was ruled to be inadmissible in court? The follow if people do agree that his concerns are valid is what should be done to address them while minimising the of powers censure of the judge.
The majority of posts here are about how the message was delivered, not what the message was.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Oct 2007)

Purple, the concerns were correct.  The way the judge rasied them, citing a particular case and quite clearly personalising his criticism against a particular victim, were IMHO quite inappropriate.


----------



## A.Partridge (16 Oct 2007)

These are (according to Wikipedia) the aims of a Victim Impact Statement when dealing with a serious crime such as murder or manslaughter:



> One purpose of the statement is to allow the person or persons most directly affected by the crime to address the court during the decision making process. It is seen to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the victim. From the victim's point of view it is regarded as valuable in aiding their emotional recovery from their ordeal. It has also been suggested they may confront an offender with the results of their crime and thus aid rehabilitation.
> Another purpose of the statement is to inform a court of the harm suffered by the victim if the court is required to, or has the option of, having regard to the harm suffered by the victim in deciding the sentence.
> 
> In cases of crimes resulting in death, the right to speak is extended to family members. In some jurisdictions there are very different rules on how victim impact statements from family members may be regarded. This is because it is seen as unprincipled that different punishments for death are given according to the how much the victim is missed, or conversely that someone's death is relatively less harmful if they have no family.
> ...


----------



## sherib (16 Oct 2007)

Posters here may be interested in a UCC Law Society public debate on Victim Impact Statements on Wednesday 25th October 07. [broken link removed]

I can't agree that censoring a V.I.S. should be recommended nor that the delivery should be restricted to the Judge and Accused. IMO the psychological benefit to the Victim and the family derives from being able to stand up in public and state the effect the crime has had on their lives. 

Having said that, a V.I.S. should not be an opportunity for further demonisation of an Accused who is about to be sentenced, particularly when the matter/s raised did not form part of the trial. Is it not a basic human right to be able to defend oneself against an accusation or allegation which is obviously precluded when made in a position of privilege? The damage done is instantaneous and cannot be undone.

It should be possible for a Victim to have their questions answered by someone qualified in the legalities of a trial process. The matters raised by Judge Carney reach far beyond the particular case being discussed.


----------



## RainyDay (16 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> As I said before, the issue of the Separation of Powers, is complex and requires FAR more space on this thread than available - I reckon most viewers would move on before finishing the FIRST page. As I said in my previous post, I am NOT interested in getting into a discussion on the SoP on this board. My interst in this thread is, as stated previously, on the original topic. Start YOUR own thread on SoP and I may join in.....when this (original) thread is debated a bit more.


Ah, now we are back to the 'we're too dumb to understand seperation of powers' approach. It doesn't wash - this issue has nothing to do with seperation of powers. It's a pity that you can't bite the bullet and admit that this is a total red herring.



Marathon Man said:


> As Purple explains :
> The Judiciary does NOT campaign in public. JC's lecture was to a Law Faculty lecture. Such a forum does NOT constitute campaigning in PUBLIC. Btw, while I disagree with Catherine McGuinness' argument on the topic, she also provides some insight as to why the Judiciary cannot "campaign", as you put it.


This is clearly nonsense. Multiple versions of press releases are sent out in advance and you claim it is not a public event. Ludicrous....



Marathon Man said:


> My issue with you was, and is, your assertion (13 Oct - #10, 13 Oct - #12) that JC should meet Majella Holohan face-to-face, along with your assertion that the lecture was public. In the extremely unlikely event that it were to happen, I am at a loss as to what practical purpose the meeting would serve either party?



My suggestions for a meeting was facetious. I have no expectation that his honour will sit down with the Holohans. The purpose of this suggestion was to demonstrate the cowardice involved in sitting round with his bewigged colleagues chewing the cud on theoretical issues, while a family continues to grieve for the loss of a child. I doubt if his honour is dumb enough to have been surprised by this reaction. If he is that dumb, he shouldn't be on the bench. If not, it makes it look like a cynical exercise in trying to exercise dominance over a citizen who had the guts to stand up to his honour.


----------



## sherib (16 Oct 2007)

This topic seems to have strayed far from the original question posed:


> Originally Posted by *Purple *
> _Is Judge Carney right? _


Can't help wondering if this is because it's in a "Letting Off Steam" thread which rather defeats the purpose. 


> Originally Posted by *RainyDay*
> _I'm not a legal expert, but I can't see any relevance of 'seperation of powers' on this issue_.


 Neither can I nor have any of the official media commentators raised that question. If anything this thread has shown the absolute necessity to make a clear distinction between emotion, subjective opinions and the legal system.


----------



## Sunny (18 Oct 2007)

sherib said:


> This topic seems to have strayed far from the original question posed:
> 
> Can't help wondering if this is because it's in a "Letting Off Steam" thread which rather defeats the purpose.


 
I don't think the topic has strayed off course. I don't think many people would argue that Judge Carney was wrong to raise his concerns but I like some people strongly disagree with how he went about it. I can only imagine what it is like for the victims family to have the press turning up on their door asking to comment on a judges criticism of them in a public speech. If the concept of victim impact statements is so flawed, there must be a way for the legal profession to debate the problem without having to resort to headline grabbing speeches at the expense of a grieving family.


----------



## Marathon Man (18 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> If the judge has anything to say to Mrs Holohan, he should arrange to meet her face-to-face (maybe with a treasured photograph of Wayne) in his eyeline, and explain to her directly how important his concerns are, relative to the grief of a parent who has lost a child. I wonder if his honour has the cojones to try this approach?


 


RainyDay said:


> My suggestions for a meeting was facetious. I have no expectation that his honour will sit down with the Holohans. The purpose of this suggestion was to demonstrate the cowardice involved in sitting round with his bewigged colleagues chewing the cud on theoretical issues, while a family continues to grieve for the loss of a child. I doubt if his honour is dumb enough to have been surprised by this reaction. If he is that dumb, he shouldn't be on the bench. If not, it makes it look like a cynical exercise in trying to exercise dominance over a citizen who had the guts to stand up to his honour.


 
Facetious??? Clearly it was not! Cynical perhaps, maybe even caustic, but not facetious. Nor is it a matter on which to be facetious.

Theoretical? Prompted by JCs lecture, Nora Owen, a member of the Law Reform Commission said that the LRC "needs to look at widening the scope of Section 5 of the 1993 Criminal Justice Act, which allows victims of particular crimes the right to address the court" 

In its judgement on the appeal in the case, the CCA stated:



> The uncontrolled addition of material perceived by the maker of the statement to exist, or allegedly existing, such as appears to have occurred in the present case outside that presented by the prosecution, which is charged with bringing all appropriate material to the attention of the jury, could lead to an unacceptable interference in the proper prosecution of criminal offences, as well as to very significant damage to a convicted person awaiting sentence


The CCA ruling supports JC's opinion that Mrs Holohan was wrong in introducing her addendum to her Victim Impact statement. So is the CCA also engaged in "a cynical exercise in trying to exercise dominance over a citizen". Clearly the CCA has ruled that she was wrong.


Marathon Man said:


> I note ....... YOU have NOT commented on the issue of the thread topic, but snipe, without providing counter arguement.


I think this point is still valid. Can you not provide your own counter arguments, rather than "pulpit bashing"? Let's hear some foundation/backup/references supporting your arguments on the topic (what exactly are they? I'm unclear. You obviously feel that JC is wrong, but can you offer anything more to the debate other than "letting off steam"?)


----------



## RainyDay (18 Oct 2007)

Marathon Man said:


> Facetious??? Clearly it was not! Cynical perhaps, maybe even caustic, but not facetious. Nor is it a matter on which to be facetious.


So now you have added telepathy to your CV? You can read my mind, and you understand my intentions better than me?


----------



## Marathon Man (19 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> So now you have added telepathy to your CV? You can read my mind, and you understand my intentions better than me?


Your intentions MAY have been facetious, however that is NOT how it came across. If YOUR intentions aren't clear from your message, don't expect receivers to interpret it in the fashion you intended!

My last word on this matter with you! I am NOT interested in continuing in a pointless spat in which you have consistently avoided the thread topic. You clearly want to pick an argument rather than discuss the thread issue.


----------

