If the judge directed that legal advice was to be disregarded by the jury in this case i.e. that the accused were responsible for their own decisions, then how can he logically take State advice into account when sentencing? Surely such highly paid executives were responsible for taking the decisions they did, legally and morally, regardless of legal or State advice. After all, ignorance is not a defence under the law. Particularly company law, which directors are supposed to know?
"The Central Bank has substantially strengthened Ireland's capacity in financial regulation and supervision over the past number of years and introduced sweeping changes in supervisory practices.
It is confident that the shortcomings described by the Court would not recur today."
So there you have a firm kick in the testicular region for Pat Neary.
Well no one expected any other result of the (whitewash) trial,;paddy;has been fooled again with smart words,and of course the law allows it,and the court allows it for now.
There will be another moral judgement for all concerned later.
"The Central Bank has substantially strengthened Ireland's capacity in financial regulation and supervision over the past number of years and introduced sweeping changes in supervisory practices.
It is confident that the shortcomings described by the Court would not recur today."
So there you have a firm kick in the testicular region for Pat Neary.
B is manslaughter
Maybe nuff said!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?