Has Ireland really moved on from the Kerry babies - legal system re women

We don't know for sure from the newspaper accounts.

There are some veiled hints that the rights of the accused were being looked at by the judge here and we have to remember they too have rights, innocent until proven guilty etc. They seemed to have been on remand for quite a while awaiting trial. They were considered a flight risk and refused bail pending an adjournment. Add to the equation a victim who then tries to refuse to give evidence after the accused have been denied of their freedom for a considerable amount of time pending trial and that seems to have exacerbated events. Just one reading of it, who really knows unless they were there.
 
csirl said:
Sorry John, not true - see Vanillas link.
Click to expand...

That's not what the link says. Members of the press can still be present so you saying that there is no way that the journalist could have seen the events first hand was incorrect.
 
Sunny said:
That's not what the link says. Members of the press can still be present so you saying that there is no way that the journalist could have seen the events first hand was incorrect.
Click to expand...

'in camera' means members of the public are not present. I was correcting johnd's view that rape trials are held in public.

With regard to the presence of journalists, even if they were present (which though permitted under law is not the case in all rape trials) they would most likely be under reporting restrictions which include not revealing details of the parties involved in the case and/or any details which may reveal the parties. Generally speaking, such information is not allowed to be published until the verdict has been given and the victims identity can only be published with their consent. Also, usually the media would not be allowed publish the identity of an accused who is not convicted (for obvious reasons).
 
In summary, it is my opinion that the BT reporter was probably not there. This is based on the fact that some of what is reported in the article is not consistant with what happens in Irish courtrooms e.g.

"the dock" - none exist in non-jury courts.

and them mentioning her being in custody - you cannot be in custody in Ireland without reason so there must be some important facts omitted.
 
csirl said:
and them mentioning her being in custody - you cannot be in custody in Ireland without reason so there must be some important facts omitted.
Click to expand...

I think when she didnt turn up to give evidence the judge issued a bench warrant for her arrest. She was later held in custody to await giving evidence. Again, I'm not certain of the facts here but that is what I gather.
 
Maybe Ireland can fully move on from the Kerry Babies case.
The alleged mother and father of baby John have been arrested and are being questioned.
After 37 years the truth may come out.
 
This article in the Irish Times is very informative. It shows what a dark place Ireland was in the 1980's and how badly treated women were. It's hard to believe how backward we were.

Every young person should read it and be very glad that our society has changes as it has. The drive to change society is never led by those in power so we should all be thankful to the women who led the conversation and started the campaigns that have brought us to where we are; not perfect but much much better.

The specifics of the case for which arrests have been made should be seem in the context of the time but should be judged on the specifics of the case.
 
It took until 2018 for the gardai to apologise for their wrongful actions. Even then, one senior Garda on the case, Gerry O'Carroll, wanted DNA tests on both babies to prove there was no connection. He himself has never apologised for his actions and rejected that "heavy handed tactics" were used.

I don't think we'll ever get to a stage where the gardai will apologise for wrongful actions unless forced to do so by a court
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register