Convicted drink driver can defer disqalification for up to 6 months??

@GerryCanning, what was your role in court? Why didn't you challenge the mis-statements in court? Why didn't you talk to the prosecution, assuming this was a prosecution and not a civil case, or if a civil case, why didnt you bear witness/talk to other party? PSNI suggests out of jurisdiction, was this an irish (republic) case?
 
The Phrase " Can`t see the wood for the trees" comes to mind with the above post!! Look it up.
 
Vanilla .

It is difficult to paraphrase a case , much less one that has been put off yet again.

The goods subject of this DPP prosecution were stolen from my care = hence my input.
I have also been asked by owners of said valuable equipment to keep an eye on the case.
In answer to your queries.
1. This was Dpp v Person who took equipment from locked yard.ie state prosecution.
2. I understand it is up to Dpp,s representative to challenge , I understand I wouldn,t be listened to.
3. This is a ROI case , the psni found the goods in N.Ire, which psni released already to rightful owner.

I am a layman in this so please all I have is what I saw and heard ; but from my legally untrained eye seems like a circus?

I expect DPP to get conviction and probably matters will then drag into interminable civil/costs action?
 
I wonder how man solicitors have the tax payer kept going over the years with this guy and would love to see the stories/excuses/lies they told on his behalf to get reduced/suspended sentences.
How many Judges has he appeared before who didn't particularly care and sent him off on his way.
And eventually he goes and kills an innocent, law abiding, tax-paying civilian....This is Ireland, 2015

From today's papers
 
Gerrycanning, this is an adjourned case so I assume you will tell the owners of the goods all of your concerns so that they can relate it back to the DPP. It seems to me that the blame is being cast on the defending solicitor, whose job it is to defend, rather than the DPP who should have their facts straight and be able to contradict or correct any information being put to the judge which is wrong. I don't condone incorrect information being put to the judge but a solicitor must act on their instructions, so it may be that he is relaying the information he has been given. If he knew this was wrong he should not have put it forward, a solicitor is an officer of the court.

The system we have means that every person before the court is entitled to legal representation, and their solicitor must represent their client, which means, putting the best case forward for that client. It is up to the state to put their case forward too.
 
Vanilla, I hear you.

I am not in the blame game ,just giving you what I heard and know.

The defending solicitor at a previous hearing stated he had phoned/,e-mailed the owners for information.He used that as a reason to get an adjournment. He did not phone/e-mail, he made it up !
You are correct he is an officer of the Court and should act with integrity.

The last day in court the defending solicitor stated that the defendant had returned the goods.He knew goods had been found and returned by psni. He was not challenged on this .
You are correct he is an officer of the court.

From my view no-one in what i viewed in this {court} type process comes out well.

{everyone is entitled} , sounds good but it appears courts are for paupers and princes , Joe Ordinary can,t afford it.
 
LS400 said:
Wow mf1, do you really believe "he" is the problem. He and his like are given every opportunity to exploit the system. It's akin to saying ( she deserved what she got for dressing like that) beggars belief as you are in the legal profession. .
Click to expand...

It's nothing like the same thing. It's a nasty and uncalled for remark.
 
There is nothing nasty about calling it as it is, To blame the person and not the system for its obvious flaws, well, its beyond comprehension. The comparison stands. You may share the same view and pretend our legal system is working fine, or sure, lets just put a plaster on this open wound, as its not hurting anybody. You should have read from the beginning before jumping in with your remark, as it took you long enough to comment on what I said. Also, Mf1 is well able to defend him/her self and can give as good as he/she gets.
 
Your remark was referring to blaming the victim for the perpetrator's criminal action.
Who is the victim that mf1 was blaming? Ridiculous remark.
 
But this is what your having difficulty understanding, society is the victim here, hence your blaming society for the failings of a flawed legal system. The easiest option is to pretend all is good.
 
Ah here. What is your post about? I'm not blaming anyone, let alone society. Nor can I see anywhere that mf1 is blaming society.
 
[QUOTE="Vanilla, Nor can I see anywhere that mf1 is blaming society.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE Who is the victim that mf1 was blaming? Ridiculous remark.[/QUOTE]

Vanilla, I f you were to read the full conversations listed, instead of contradicting youself, for the sake of airtime, you would have seen where, mf1 said, "he, being the drunk driver, was responsible for the circus of events. and not the courts system. We as a society are the victims in this. Please read in full before passing judgment.
 
LS400, your post is very confusing, because you start parenthesising but then don't continue so it seems as if the full sentence is a quotation but it clearly is not. You refer to mf1 stating that the drunk driver was responsible for the circus of events, she did not continue to say anything about society, that is your insertion. Now as far as I can see, the drunk driver is neither a victim nor does he represent our society at large. But back to what I have an issue with, you state that what mf1 said was like blaming the victim of a rape for the crime. That was uncalled for and very clearly unjust.
 
OK, as a society we are affected by poor judgments emanating from the court system. This is just one case of many. You say "he" does not represent our society at large, I am talking about the court system, not specifically this particular guy, their are court cases for D&D, Fraud, embezzlement, Sexual assaults, Murder and so on.. My post was to share my experience and highlight what I would see as a lax institution. Read the post again. How is society affected?? Well in this case, the guy is still D&D on a daily basis, and its only a matter of time before another unfortunate individual is injured or even worse killed as a result of his actions. mf1 does not know this particular individual, and referred to the shenanigans being played out in court being the alleged guilty party's fault and not the court system... Cant see the wood for the trees scenario. It was a silly comment coming from what I would consider quite an intelligent individual. You are not doing mf1 any favors by regurgitating such remarks. I know, as I have made a few in my time. I think this is more a case of circling the wagon between yourself and mf1, No pun intended YOU by the way, are the only person using the Rape word here. So maybe your next post, should you feel the need to reply, could contain something along the line of what this tread was actually all about. Have a nice day
 


You might not have used the word RAPE but it was obvious that's what you implied with the quote in bold above or are you pretending to not have meant that?
 
@dereko1969, there is no pretence going on this end in anyway shape or form. As annoyed at the comment from mf1,s post, it would have bee inappropriate to use the word Rape. I chose my words carefully, and won't be bullied into changing or backing down by any seasoned posters. I fully stand over what I wrote.
@Vanilla, you know you have lost the discussion when you feel the need to woop
up your support.
@ The both of you, the sad thing is, this in my view is a very real discussion on an important issue yet, there are some posters on aam who only look for holes to pick in posts for the sake of picking holes without contributing to the discussion itself. Have a look and see if you fall into that category.
 
From my experience (limited) the Court system is a bit dysfunctional.
I voiced my experience on this thread ,not to be just sounding off, but to ask ,is our system now a mess and do the legal fraternity still act for and believe in a just system/society?

I would worry about any system that relies on self checking will fail but at the same time surround itself in self approving arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register