# Refused right to appeal



## Henny Penny (22 Jul 2007)

Hi all,

Just wondering in light of the Rachel O'Reilly murder case, the defendant was refused right to appeal ... why? What are the grounds for appeal in a criminal case? 

Many thanks,

HP


----------



## RainyDay (22 Jul 2007)

On the radio today, one commentator mentioned that in this particular case, the accused could in fact appeal to the Appeals Court for permission to appeal, if that makes any sense.


----------



## bond-007 (22 Jul 2007)

Yes indeedy.



> *32.*—Leave to appeal shall be granted by the Court of Criminal Appeal in cases where the court is of opinion that a question of law is involved, or where the trial appears to the court to have been unsatisfactory, or there appears to the court to be any other sufficient ground of appeal, and the court shall have power to make all consequential orders it may think fit, including an order admitting the appellant to bail pending the determination of his appeal.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Jul 2007)

I think the judged refused "automatic" leave to appeal but, as above, the convict can still apply to the courts for leave to appeal. Seemingly it's normal in certain cases to refuse leave to appeal.


----------



## bond-007 (22 Jul 2007)

It is standard for leave to appeal to be refused in murder cases.


----------



## pc7 (23 Jul 2007)

from what the radio stations are saying the defense has 7 days to appeal, but they would need to have good grounds and the appeal would be judged by a number of judges.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Jul 2007)

_Irish Times_ says that the defence has two weeks to apply for leave to appeal. I believe that the appeal could only be on a point of law and if the judge happened to have made some mistake which seems unlikely given what has been reported about his balanced handling of the trial and summing up. On the other hand I am not a lawyer/barrister!


----------



## mo3art (23 Jul 2007)

As I understand it, his legal team will have to go to the Court of Appeal to "appeal the right to appeal" if you get what I mean.......


----------



## RainyDay (23 Jul 2007)

mo3art said:


> As I understand it, his legal team will have to go to the Court of Appeal to "appeal the right to appeal" if you get what I mean.......



Deja vu?.


----------



## rabbit (23 Jul 2007)

While I think the accused was probably guilty, I thought the law was innocent until proven guilty ?   Where was the evidence to prove he was guilty ?   The Birmingham 6 + Guildford 4 were locked up on more evidence.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Jul 2007)

He was innocent until *found *guilty by a jury of his peers who heard and analysed all of the evidence (and not just the snippets reported in the media) presented in court and decided (unanimously as far as I know) that beyond reasonable doubt he was guilty. You or I may not agree with their decision but that's how the judicial system works.


----------



## RainyDay (24 Jul 2007)

If he had switched off his mobile phone on the morning in question, he would almost certainly have got away with the dastardly deed.


----------



## pc7 (24 Jul 2007)

well thankfully he didn't! - although after the Robert Houlihan case does it emit a small signal even off, isnt that how they knew where to find him? Scary stuff heard one person say he should have just said he popped home because he forgot something and then he probably would have gotten away with it.


----------



## homeowner (24 Jul 2007)

In the Robert Houlihan case, the phone ran out of battery power and sent a disconnecting signal to the nearest radio base station.  They were able to narrow the search.


----------



## pc7 (24 Jul 2007)

ah that makes sense. Good letter in the paper today saying all the criminals will now send their phones elsewhere while they commit crimes to give themselves an alibi they can back up!


----------



## Staples (24 Jul 2007)

pc7 said:


> ah that makes sense. Good letter in the paper today saying all the criminals will now send their phones elsewhere while they commit crimes to give themselves an alibi they can back up!


 
I don't know that this would necessarily provide an alibi.  Just because your phone is somewhere doesn't mean you're with it.

In O'Reilly's case, if there was a plausible explanation for why he was in Phibsborough and his phone was in the Naul, he would surely have take the stand to explain why.  This wouldn't have given him an alibi but it may have introduced reasonable doubt.


----------



## michaelm (24 Jul 2007)

RainyDay said:


> If he had switched off his mobile phone on the morning in question, he would almost certainly have got away with the dastardly deed.


I believe he would have had to remove the battery to avoid being traced.


----------



## RainyDay (24 Jul 2007)

michaelm said:


> I believe he would have had to remove the battery to avoid being traced.



Is this belief based on any hard information?


----------



## ClubMan (24 Jul 2007)

michaelm said:


> I believe he would have had to remove the battery to avoid being traced.


Not as far as I know. Once it's off it's not communicating with anything so cannot be traced via cell/mast records.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Jul 2007)

pc7 said:


> ah that makes sense. Good letter in the paper today saying all the criminals will now send their phones elsewhere while they commit crimes to give themselves an alibi they can back up!


Or maybe they'll just use pay as you go (until they bring in mandatory registration - will that be done retrospectively?!?) or nick somebody else's phone.


----------



## bond-007 (24 Jul 2007)

Can they force you to register a RTG phone?


----------



## michaelm (24 Jul 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Is this belief based on any hard information?


Actually no, a little voice in my head suggested it to me. I since checked it on the web and it seems yourself and ClubMan are correct.

IMHO the mandatory registering of mobile phones is another regrettable step down the road to a Big Brother state.


----------



## PM1234 (25 Jul 2007)

A spokesman on the radio (from a telecommunications company) said today that if they bring in mandatory registering of RTG phones it will result in people buying sim cards from other European countries to replace their own so it will defeat the purpose?


----------



## ClubMan (25 Jul 2007)

bond-007 said:


> Can they force you to register a RTG phone?


If/when they bring in legislation presumably they can. Not sure how they will deal with retrospective registration though.


----------



## bond-007 (25 Jul 2007)

At the moment it is too easy to register a phone with false details (to obtain free credit etc) as no check of the details is ever made.


----------



## gonk (25 Jul 2007)

ClubMan said:


> If/when they bring in legislation presumably they can. Not sure how they will deal with retrospective registration though.


 
From yesterday's (24/07/07) _Irish Times:_

'Government plans to introduce a register of all mobile phones are likely to only relate to new "pay-as-you-go" handsets, meaning thousands of these phones already in circulation will not be affected.

The Minister of State responsible for drugs strategy, Pat Carey TD, revealed yesterday that he did not think it would be feasible to "backdate" the measure to include older phones.'

Which means the whole thing is completely pointless - the number of such phones is actually more in the hundreds of thousands - not thousands. And as a letter writer to the _IT_ points out today, many of the owners of such phones are children, who would often have no means of proving their identity or address - they don't pay utility bills, they don't have driving licences, etc. Are they to be barred from owning RTG phones in future?

The criminals will find it trivial to circumvent this. It will only cause hassle for customers and extra costs for the phone companies, which no doubt they will find ways of passing on to us.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Jul 2007)

Yeah - seems like a stupid kneejerk reaction to a single (?) recent court case...


----------



## almo (25 Jul 2007)

I know I'm picking up on a narrow idea, but did anyone notice on Monday how the verdict on the woman who tried set fire to her house to kill her husband and kids was let off with 5 years suspended sentence?  I know it's all love and hugs, in the papers anyway, for her and her family, but can you imagine if it was Joe Murphy in some suburb?  I do have an enduring feeling that the law is set, and the media, to play to common public perceptions.


----------



## gonk (25 Jul 2007)

Remember Norma Cotter of Midleton in Cork? In 1995 she came home drunk, took exception to her husband objecting to her puking in their bedroom, and after sleeping off the drink went back to the bedroom with her husband's shotgun and killed him as he slept. Norma served three years for manslaughter. One of the reasons the judge gave for the light sentence was that she had to care for her children. 

Can you imagine the outrage if it had been Norma's husband who shot her and he got off that lightly?


----------



## Madangan (25 Jul 2007)

Gonk

I think there may have been a bit more to the Nora Cotter case than your brief outline.

Almo,

None of us know all the facts but there was a clear inference of mental illness unlike in the O'Reilly case.

That said I know where you are both coming from. Maybe its poor media reporting in many of these cases( nothing the papers like than a good story..never let the facts get in the way of a bit of drama) but in fairness there have been cases of men committing acts of violence and getting very low and even suspended sentences (eg some rape cases) so if you think theres a bias one way or other you can always find cases to back up your argument .

My biggest worry is that it gives John Waters yet another reason to remind us that there was never an unmarried father in Ireland before him. If only he'd stick to the song writing instead


----------



## gonk (25 Jul 2007)

Madangan said:


> Gonk
> 
> I think there may have been a bit more to the Nora Cotter case than your brief outline.


 
It was, in my view, a brief but fair summary, but if you want more detail you could start with these reports on the trial and sentencing. Feel free to point out any material inaccuracies or omissions in my original post.

[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]

I stand over my opinion that there is no way a husband who killed his wife in similar circumstances would have got away with a manslaughter conviction, still less a 3 year sentence. If one did, there would - rightly -be absolute uproar.


----------



## Purple (25 Jul 2007)

What about that woman in Knocklyon in Dublin who used a hammer and a knife to kill her husband in his sleep and got a few years for manslaughter?
If a man did that to his wife would he get the same? I don't think so.


----------



## gonk (25 Jul 2007)

Purple said:


> What about that woman in Knocklyon in Dublin who used a hammer and a knife to kill her husband in his sleep and got a few years for manslaughter?
> If a man did that to his wife would he get the same? I don't think so.


 
In that case, Dolores O'Neill claimed she had been the victim of sustained domestic violence over a long period. In fact, the prosecution had available to it a diary belonging to the victim detailing the prolonged attacks _he_ had been subjected to by his wife. The truth was, far from being a battered wife, she was the one doing the battering. For reasons best known to the DPP, the diary was not entered into evidence . . .


----------



## ClubMan (25 Jul 2007)

almo said:


> but can you imagine if it was Joe Murphy in some suburb?


Who is _Joe Murphy _and what did he do?


----------



## bond-007 (25 Jul 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Who is _Joe Murphy _and what did he do?


I think he is a typicial suburban male.


----------



## Madangan (25 Jul 2007)

Women do get sentenced to long sentences too. E.g Jacqui Noble currently in gaol for killing husband notwithstanding that he was an extremely violent man.

The truth is juries and judges get to hear far more of the facts(and the circumstances surrounding them) than ever get reported in the Media so it is very hard for any of us to judge any particular case. 

I am left as mystified as anyone by sentencing policy but I think it is too easy and trite to say it is an anti male pro female bias in any particular case. For the record while I am no "string em up" or "lock em up and throw away the key" advocate neither am I a "bleedin heart liberal" but in cases of violence I am often astounded at the short sentences dished out to both men and women at times.


----------



## gonk (25 Jul 2007)

Madangan said:


> Women do get sentenced to long sentences too. E.g Jacqui Noble currently in gaol for killing husband notwithstanding that he was an extremely violent man.
> 
> The truth is juries and judges get to hear far more of the facts(and the circumstances surrounding them) than ever get reported in the Media so it is very hard for any of us to judge any particular case.


 
He may have been a violent man, but the penalty for domestic violence is not summary execution.

In the Dolores O'Neill case, the jury manifestly did not get to hear the full facts. I think if they knew of the victim's diary it is very likely they would have brought in a murder conviction.


----------



## Madangan (25 Jul 2007)

gonk said:


> He may have been a violent man, but the penalty for domestic violence is not summary execution.
> 
> In the Dolores O'Neill case, the jury manifestly did not get to hear the full facts. I think if they knew of the victim's diary it is very likely they would have brought in a murder conviction.


 
Gonk,

Never suggested summary execution!!!!! (Or indeed that she should not have been sentenced to a long spell in gaol... merely pointing out that women get convicted and sentenced to lenghty sentences too).
I hope you are not quoting the facts from the O'Neill case(which I do not know so will not comment on) as selectively as you quoted from my post! I made it quite clear that I do not like or understand the shortness of sentences in cases of violence. So please if you are going to quote from other peoples post do same fairly and in context.


As to why in some cases certain evidence is not put to a jury it can be as much a mystery to me as you... I guess its about trying to get a fair trial and balancing the right of any accused to be presumed innocent with those of the victim and sometimes the system gets it wrong..the innocent get convicted the guilty can walk free.

My point in joining this thread was that sometimes its very easy to assume that a bias exists when in fact decisions are made for very different reasons.


----------



## gonk (25 Jul 2007)

Madangan said:


> Never suggested summary execution!!!!! (Or indeed that she should not have been sentenced to a long spell in gaol... merely pointing out that women get convicted and sentenced to lenghty sentences too).
> I hope you are not quoting the facts from the O'Neill case(which I do not know so will not comment on) as selectively as you quoted from my post! I made it quite clear that I do not like or understand the shortness of sentences in cases of violence. So please if you are going to quote from other peoples post do same fairly and in context.


 
I did not intend to imply you personally felt the victims in any of these cases "had it coming" and I apologise if that's how you intrepreted my post. I would, however, certainly argue that one could very reasonably get the impression that's how the courts see it when one looks at how they treat such cases.

The point is that a common thread in these three cases was the justification offered for killing a husband/partner was the alleged violence shown to the killer by the deceased. Ironically, the accused who came off worst was the only one who had genuinely been herself the victim of domestic violence. The other two were fabricating allegations against their victims. 

The Norma Cotter case in particular was a travesty of justice. 



Madangan said:


> My point in joining this thread was that sometimes its very easy to assume that a bias exists when in fact decisions are made for very different reasons.


 
Nobody could be in any doubt that a husband who killed his wife in the circumstances in which Norma Cotter killed her husband would have been treated much more severely by the courts. To my mind, that is _prima facie_ bias.


----------



## Madangan (25 Jul 2007)

Gonk,

I think we would agree  more often than disagree.


----------



## Purple (25 Jul 2007)

gonk said:


> IThe Norma Cotter case in particular was a travesty of justice.
> Nobody could be in any doubt that a husband who killed his wife in the circumstances in which Norma Cotter killed her husband would have been treated much more severely by the courts. To my mind, that is _prima facie_ bias.


I agree; there was an element of premeditation as she went downstairs, got the gun, loaded it, went back upstairs and then shot her husband.
There is no way on earth a man would be acquitted of murder in the same circumstances.
Did the Judge say that Joe O’Reilly should get a lenient sentence because he has small children to look after? Indeed, will he ever get custody of his children again?
Is a woman who kills her husband with a shotgun after a drinking binge now regarded as a suitable parent?


----------



## bond-007 (25 Jul 2007)

The mind boggles.


----------



## RainyDay (25 Jul 2007)

It is interesting to note the difference in media reporting of female murder-suicide cases (tragedy/illness angle) and male murder-suicide cases (evil nasty father angle).


----------



## z108 (9 Aug 2007)

RainyDay said:


> It is interesting to note the difference in media reporting of female murder-suicide cases (tragedy/illness angle) and male murder-suicide cases (evil nasty father angle).



Interesting thread. Can someone direct me to some examples of this difference in reporting ? I would have hoped (perhaps in vain) that the facts would prevent  a news story straying too far from the truth.


----------

