High Court Inspector exonerates Jim Flavin

Brendan said:
. But because he did not produce a "hang em and flog em" finding, they are now unhappy.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree with you there, I find it odd, as do many others, that the Supreme Court says there was an offence and this report has set about to prove that the offence was an innocent mistake and so doesn't matter.

So it goes back to it was an offence under the law and should be punished. Maybe this is too simplistic but that's the way I see it.

It would be interesting to have the views of some of the legal eagles on AAM because I find it difficult to understand it maybe they could shed some light on it for the rest of us. Thinks like how does the High court Inspector work as versus a Supreme court ruling.
 
I've just thought of something else. Are Shipsey and O'Rourke both barristers?
 
Why should I care that one guy - a guy who thinks that saving Liam Carroll was in the public interest, incidentally - disagrees with the Supreme Court? I'm still confused by this.
 
Brendan said:
Right, I see your point. So the only people who can comment on this issue are people without any legal training. That's fair enough.
Click to expand...
For the record, that's not what he said, but you seem to be putting 2+2 together to make about 17 regularly on this thread. Exaggerating people's positions and then ridiculing the exaggerated version doesn't make for great discussion.
Brendan said:
The same presumably applies to the High Court judge who found that it was not insider trading? She judged that it was not insider trading. The Supreme Court judges found that it was.

Jim Flavin did not have the 5 Supreme Court judges to consult with before doing the transaction.
Click to expand...
No - he did not have the 5 Supreme Court judges. But presumably, he had the best expert advice that money can buy available to him at the drop of a hat. So did he seek expert advice, and how good was the advice that he received?

I'm frequently bemused when 'legal advice' is blamed for a decision one way or other. Advice is just that - advice. It is up to the recipient to exercise appropriate judgement based on that advice. There is a real 'old boy's network' going on here. Have a look at at the current board ([broken link removed]) and current management team ([broken link removed]). You couldn't make this stuff up. One women on each (you wouldn't want anyone saying that they discriminate now), and the female manager taking the soft, fluffy HR role. If that was part of a movie plot, I'd be dissapointed with the stereotyping. Look at how many of the management team are KPMG alumni.

There was a lot of groupthink going on here. When a board consists of a group of people coming largely from the same background and environment, the independence is challenged. DCC sailed so close to the wind with their tax avoidance scheme that it was inevitable that they were going to crash at some stage.
 
From my further reading on this matter it seems the inspectors report is based on interviews with 20 people. These 20 people just happen to be the board and executive members, and also accountants who prepare the accounts or do the necessary corporate enforcement. Have I misunderstood this?
 
Complainer said

For the record, that's not what he said, but you seem to be putting 2+2 together to make about 17 regularly on this thread. Exaggerating people's positions and then ridiculing the exaggerated version doesn't make for great discussion.
Click to expand...

Bronte said

I've just thought of something else. Are Shipsey and O'Rourke both barristers?
Click to expand...

I said

So the only people who can comment on this issue are people without any legal training. That's fair enough.
Click to expand...

Hi Complainer

I am exaggerating to make a point. Bronte wants to undermine O'Rourke's views because he is a barrister and so is Shipsey.

I don't remember any criticism of Shipsey at the time he was appointed.

He is a very highly regarded person. He has done an investigation. He makes a finding which people don't like, so now they attack him. He was told to investigate the transactioins. He was not told to "go out and find Jim Flavin guilty".

Brendan
 
I am pointing out the O'Rourke and Shipsey are both barristers, I think that is an important point because anyone who knows the legal profession in Ireland and barristers in particular will know that they, in general, all know each other very well. I do not know for a fact that either of them know each other well, but in a small country such as Ireland it is nearly always the case and it could be relevant to O' Rourke's reasoning.

O' Rourke's view may be perfectly correct, I don't know. My view too can be equally correct. I've not 100% made up my mind on it, and in any case I don't profess to be an expert. All I'm doing is posting perfectly valid opinions and ideas.

Going back to the High court inspectors decision, which is where my main issue is, I actually don't understand how it seems to be in direct opposition to the Supreme Court judgment. I also think it is important to point out that the people consulted to make the report are Flavin's peers, I think that is relevant. Maybe in the coming days and with other people's views, more expert in this area, we may actually understand the report. But currently it looks like another whitewash.

Another question, if this reports decision is that Flavin did nothing wrong, then he should be reinstated and the fines paid repaid?
 
Bronte

Going back to the High court inspectors decision, which is where my main issue is, I actually don't understand how it seems to be in direct opposition to the Supreme Court judgment.
Click to expand...

I know you don't like the fact that O'Rourke is a barrister, but read his website and it explains that it is not in opposition to the Supreme Court finding.

Another question, if this reports decision is that Flavin did nothing wrong, then he should be reinstated and the fines paid repaid?
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, there were no "fines" paid by anybody. Again,this is what most people are missing. The difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial.

Brendan
 
Good comment:
"Ignorantia haud juris, neminem excusat" was what I was taught, in Legal Studies, almost 60 years ago. It would seem that the gurus in Henrietta Street have moved this to one side?
Click to expand...
 
"Ignorantia haud juris, neminem excusat"

Now this was exactly what I was thinking, although not in Latin!

If I was stopped for speeding on say the N7 and told the Guard that I had received legal advice and thought the speed limit was 120KPH.............

An honest mistake Guard, off you go there.......
 
Can the High Court's Inspectors decision be appealed?

Also could someone explain to us what the difference is between the civil and criminal in this case as I'm finding it difficult to understand.
 
I am not sure that the High Court Inspector made any decision as such. He investigated the matter and reported on it to the Director of Corporate Enforcement. It would have been the Director who would have made any decisions. But these decisions would have been made on actually reading the report not on trying to please the mob or some preconceived idea that someone was guilty before he had even been charged with an offence.
 
If the Director of Corporate Enforcement doesn't like the High Court Inspectors report can he do anything else?

How does this tie in with the Supreme Courts decision of an 'offence' of insider trading?
 
Read the report or read Irish Lawyer.com

I know you don't like the conclusions, but they will explain systematically all the issues involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top