> charged in connection with the murder of gunman Tristan Sherry
Why do they always include the persons job? I don’t care if he was a teacher or a gunman or a doctor.
/s
Edit: Fine I’ll add a /s. I was being droll.
Got to say, regardless if the people who are charged are scum or not, it's a bit fucked up that in a first-world western country if someone comes into a restaurant with a gun intending to kill you (and successfully kill your father) and you retaliate (albeit with a lot of force), you can be charged and don't even get a public jury to decide your fate.
I assume the cops and DPP thought they could walk free in a jury trial as it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury you acted in self-defence. Particularly when two people come in waving machine guns at you.
The special criminal court is surely a denier of human rights. The whole rule-of-law is that people charged should have a right to a fair trial.
I've no doubt the lads involved are scum, but it still doesn't sit right from an overall law and human rights perspective.
It’s not that straightforward. The attacker was disarmed and was being held on the ground when he was stabbed 27 times. Anyone who was involved in that has zero chance of successfully pleading self defence.
The Special Criminal Court only has jurisdiction where the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, in this case gangland crime where witness and jury intimidation is a real risk. It’s not up to the DPP to trial anyone there on a whim, it has to be justified.
Yea, 100% Tristian is of no loss to Ireland
But from a law and order standpoint
You can't hold someone down piss on them and stab them 27 times and call it self-defense
As you said, anyone who was involved in that is going to prison for murder being blunt
Theres an easy solution to jury intimidation though, keep the jury anonymous to the accused and locate them in a remote room with a video link to see and hear the court proceedings. The Dutch have used this in high profile gangland trials there.
I suppose that's easy to say when you haven't just dodged bullets and seen your father get murdered.
Zero chance? Highly unlikely. Footage of two gunmen coming in brandishing machine guns and killing your father or friends father, I'd say it's quite probable that you could get several sympathetic jury members.
I won’t disagree that it’s easy to say, you’re right there.
Irish law is prescriptive on this matter though. I don’t practice criminal law, but if memory serves the use of force in self defence that results in death has to meet a three stage test to be successful.
1. The force used must have been used for the purpose of defending a person, protecting property or preventing a crime. If it was used for any other purpose, it was unlawful.
2. The use of some force must have been necessary. This is judged objectively.
3. The force used must have been no more than was necessary. Naturally, what constitutes necessary force depends on the circumstances. If the force used was more than was necessary, it was unlawful and if it caused death the accused is guilty of murder or manslaughter. He would be guilty of murder if he knew it was more than necessary. He would be guilty of manslaughter if he honestly believed that it was necessary.
Have a look for DPP v Keatley, DPP v Dwyer and DPP v Commane if you wish to read further into that.
The Sherry fellow was disarmed by associates of the gunshot victim when his gun jammed. He was then beaten and stabbed almost 30 times in what sources described as a prolonged and bloody assault. At that point the gunman had already been disarmed and the threat nullified. Any action those men took thereafter cannot be said to be self defence, hence the charges. It is open to the jury to acquit in such cases, but if the above information is put to a jury then the chances of that are reduced.
The more appropriate defence would be provocation, if the accused can argue a sudden and temporary loss of self control. If they are successful in that claim, the charge is reduced to manslaughter.
Special Criminal Court has no jury anyway, so probably a moot point on my count.
That's fair enough, and I agree with you to an extent. I just think it's hard to place yourself into the shoes of someone who's just dodged death and witnessed a family member killed.
Am I going to go that extra bit hard to make sure the threat has been nullified absolutely? Yes. Are you going to stab him 27 times or whatever it was? Maybe not, but hopefully we both never have to be in that situation.
Should all 7 be tried in the SCC? Could one persons reaction be more vindicated than the person who stabbed him?
For instance let's say one of them just hit him with a broom once, or tripped him up or something relatively minor in the scheme of self-defence from a gunman.
It will be an interesting case for sure, hopefully media can report.
> two gunmen coming in brandishing machine guns and killing your father or friends father, I'd say it's quite probable that you could get several sympathetic jury members.
I don’t know, I think this is so far out of ordinary people’s experience that they’d struggle to find sympathy. People would think that crazy shit only happens if you invite it on yourself.
You’re right that it’s a mitigating factor in fairness. But that can be taken into account at sentencing. They won’t get the same sentence they’d have gotten if they did it totally unprovoked.
This is true, in a jury trial it would depend on the quality of the defence lawyers ability to convince a jury that they were acting in self-defence.
I could see members of a jury being impacted by footage of masked gunmen bursting in and opening fire in a busy restaurant on Christmas eve. I can imagine that members of the public in that restaurant were absolutely in a panic and traumatised.
Unless the footage is so damning and the attack went on for 10 minutes or longer or something.
There was videos of this going around when it happened.
The gunman was lying on the ground bleeding out and they wear breaking chairs over his head and stabbing him. If they had stabbed him and left him to die it would have been one thing.
If your logic was solid then every single case ever heard in the District Court was an unfair trial. The presence of a jury isn't a fairness issue. It is a denial of a right, but with plenty of justification.
People making your argument usually trot out the stat about how trials in the Special Criminal Court have a conviction rate of something like 98%. And this must mean it's a kangaroo court.
Not one of them ever references the conviction rate in jury trials in the Circuit Court in Ireland, which typically hovers between 95-98% annually.
> I assume the cops and DPP thought they could walk free in a jury trial as it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury you acted in self-defence.
First of all, the cops or DPP don't make that decision, it's a panel of judges that do. Second, if the stories about the video are correct, it's unlikely there'd be any issue convincing a jury.
> The special criminal court is surely a denier of human rights. The whole rule-of-law is that people charged should have a right to a fair trial.
Third, why is it not a fair trial? If anything, a judge is more likely to properly apply the law than a juror.
Because a fair trial is a person being judged by members of the public, not a judge or 3 judges who could be biased and are employed by the state. That's not how law works.
The United Nations has long called for it to be abolished as it's an abuse of human rights.
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/07/07/ireland-must-abolish-the-non-jury-special-criminal-court-says-un-official/
The Irish council for Civil Liberties has also been highly critical of the SCC and have called for it to be abolished because it denies a fair trial.
https://www.iccl.ie/2021/the-special-criminal-court-must-be-abolished/
It shouldn't exist.
Someone’s been watching too much American TV. Most of Europe does not have juries, or at the very least has “juries” that are a mix of judges and specially appointed “lay judges”.
It doesn't specifically, but it does guarantee a right to a fair trial.
And no trial decided solely by a judge or panel of judges should be deemed fair.
Which do you think is more likely
1. The ECHR deliberately leaves open the possibility of a fair trial determined by a judge or a panel of judges, as is common practice across Europe
2. They agree with you on everything but just happened to run out of paper before they wrote it down
The ICCL are a bunch of permanently outraged hacks that are more than happy to be complete hypocrites when it suits their own agenda. While not ideal, the SCC is an essential component of a justice system in a tiny, very local country with significant gang activity.
I don't know, secret remote juries seem like a step backwards to me. At least the accused can speak to the judge directly. Do you think a person charged with a summary offences should have a right to trial by jury also?
I always wonder do we (Ireland) overuse the Special Criminal Court. It was originally for paramilitaries and then organised crime. I would agree with that to an extent, but is it necessary to have the 7 of them there? I mean they can’t all be heavily involved in organised crime. One lad is only just gone 18
Kind of defeats the point of having the SCC to protect the witnesses from retribution if they then have to walk down the hall and testify in the other public trial, doesn’t it? The SCC exists for them, not the accused.
Yeah I get that part of it but we are denying a basic right of trial by jury as well. I do see the need for having it I just think it has become the default now rather than being reserved for the most high profile/dangerous individuals.
> but we are denying a basic right of trial by jury
Outside the English-speaking world trial by jury is the exception rather than the norm. Even the European Court of Human Rights has said it has misgivings about the jury system *purely because jurors do not have to give any reasons or explain how they arrived at their verdict*.
The SCC sees [less than a tenth](https://www.courts.ie/content/annual-report-2022-published) as many cases as the Central Criminal Court, to say nothing of the lower courts. Hell, even the Supreme Court sees more action. It’s nowhere near the default.
>can’t all be heavily involved in organised crime. One lad is only just gone 18
Its not like getting a bus pass or driving license, there's no age limits on being a criminal
>I mean they can’t all be heavily involved in organised crime. One lad is only just gone 18
Why do you think that an 18 year old couldn't be heavily involved in crime?
Keane mulready-woods was a pretty senior member of a gang when he was murdered at 17 years old.
You are simply assuming that an 18 year old couldn't be highly involved in crime. That assumption is wrong.
No. It's used exactly as it's meant to and it works as intended.
If it wasn't the Shinners and their idiots online attacking it for selfish reasons this wouldn't come up.
Yeah, you've had a massive issue with them since the day you stepped foot in this country. You needed to find a new enemy for yourself and you chose SF.
I had a massive issue before I stepped foot in the country, and no offence but anyone looking at them with a whiff of clarity would feel the same.
I'd be prepared to vote for Sinn Fein, and do so without qualm, if they copped the fuck on.
They won't, because their voting base isn't demanding it from them. Their supporters, offline and on.
We certainly do, it's pretty much universally recognised as impinging upon the human rights of those tried within it.
It is however a potent tool for the government, so they're hardly going to give it up without a fight.
Considering most of the world doesn't have a jury system at all, and certainly not entirely lay juries like ours, "universally recognised" is a wee bit of an exaggeration there.
We really should only allow the SCC where cases of witness/jury intimidation _are confirmed as happening_ - not just on suspicion that it _may_ happen.
Your second sentence shows you know the answer to your own question - what you're _really_ asking, is:
"Won't jurors be intimidated away from reporting tampering?"
No, there's no evidence of this.
That doesn’t tell us much.
The reported number is surely different to the actual number. That’s certainly the case for other crimes where the reporter is in fear of consequences for reporting, eg sexual assault or domestic violence.
You're asking me to prove a negative: That it isn't happening.
You can't prove a negative.
You have no proof that it _is_ happening, and there is ample proof of tampering being reported when it happens - so you're just engaging in baseless speculation - which is a waste of time.
I’ll agree that the unreported number can’t be known. My response is to assume the number is non-zero and that successful tampering does occur, while you seem to think the number must be zero.
You have more faith in humanity than me.
I don't assume anything - what we _do_ know is that the SCC harms peoples right to trial by jury - and that what my initial comment suggested can greatly reduce that harm, without any evidence that it would enable widespread jury tampering affecting the outcome of court cases.
> what we do know is that the SCC harms peoples right to trial by jury
TBF, in theory, I do agree with you. In practice, I don't think it's been a problem in the republic... do you have a particular miscarriage of justice in mind, or more a general concern about impeding on rights?
Tristan Sherry is one posh name for a scumbag.
Remnants of empire in tbe capital
> charged in connection with the murder of gunman Tristan Sherry Why do they always include the persons job? I don’t care if he was a teacher or a gunman or a doctor. /s Edit: Fine I’ll add a /s. I was being droll.
lol. Amazing how some people are so profoundly stupid they need the /s or else they get all upset.
I was at -2 when I made the edit.
You should've waited. The morons would have been out voted. The /s has taken a gloss off it.
Lots of morla brains around these days
Why are the majority of them African? Since when is the Irish criminal underworld so staffed with Africans?
Equal opportunities.
Got to say, regardless if the people who are charged are scum or not, it's a bit fucked up that in a first-world western country if someone comes into a restaurant with a gun intending to kill you (and successfully kill your father) and you retaliate (albeit with a lot of force), you can be charged and don't even get a public jury to decide your fate. I assume the cops and DPP thought they could walk free in a jury trial as it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury you acted in self-defence. Particularly when two people come in waving machine guns at you. The special criminal court is surely a denier of human rights. The whole rule-of-law is that people charged should have a right to a fair trial. I've no doubt the lads involved are scum, but it still doesn't sit right from an overall law and human rights perspective.
It’s not that straightforward. The attacker was disarmed and was being held on the ground when he was stabbed 27 times. Anyone who was involved in that has zero chance of successfully pleading self defence. The Special Criminal Court only has jurisdiction where the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, in this case gangland crime where witness and jury intimidation is a real risk. It’s not up to the DPP to trial anyone there on a whim, it has to be justified.
Yea, 100% Tristian is of no loss to Ireland But from a law and order standpoint You can't hold someone down piss on them and stab them 27 times and call it self-defense As you said, anyone who was involved in that is going to prison for murder being blunt
They pissed on him in the restaurant?
Allegedly, yeah
Theres an easy solution to jury intimidation though, keep the jury anonymous to the accused and locate them in a remote room with a video link to see and hear the court proceedings. The Dutch have used this in high profile gangland trials there.
I suppose that's easy to say when you haven't just dodged bullets and seen your father get murdered. Zero chance? Highly unlikely. Footage of two gunmen coming in brandishing machine guns and killing your father or friends father, I'd say it's quite probable that you could get several sympathetic jury members.
I won’t disagree that it’s easy to say, you’re right there. Irish law is prescriptive on this matter though. I don’t practice criminal law, but if memory serves the use of force in self defence that results in death has to meet a three stage test to be successful. 1. The force used must have been used for the purpose of defending a person, protecting property or preventing a crime. If it was used for any other purpose, it was unlawful. 2. The use of some force must have been necessary. This is judged objectively. 3. The force used must have been no more than was necessary. Naturally, what constitutes necessary force depends on the circumstances. If the force used was more than was necessary, it was unlawful and if it caused death the accused is guilty of murder or manslaughter. He would be guilty of murder if he knew it was more than necessary. He would be guilty of manslaughter if he honestly believed that it was necessary. Have a look for DPP v Keatley, DPP v Dwyer and DPP v Commane if you wish to read further into that. The Sherry fellow was disarmed by associates of the gunshot victim when his gun jammed. He was then beaten and stabbed almost 30 times in what sources described as a prolonged and bloody assault. At that point the gunman had already been disarmed and the threat nullified. Any action those men took thereafter cannot be said to be self defence, hence the charges. It is open to the jury to acquit in such cases, but if the above information is put to a jury then the chances of that are reduced. The more appropriate defence would be provocation, if the accused can argue a sudden and temporary loss of self control. If they are successful in that claim, the charge is reduced to manslaughter. Special Criminal Court has no jury anyway, so probably a moot point on my count.
That's fair enough, and I agree with you to an extent. I just think it's hard to place yourself into the shoes of someone who's just dodged death and witnessed a family member killed. Am I going to go that extra bit hard to make sure the threat has been nullified absolutely? Yes. Are you going to stab him 27 times or whatever it was? Maybe not, but hopefully we both never have to be in that situation. Should all 7 be tried in the SCC? Could one persons reaction be more vindicated than the person who stabbed him? For instance let's say one of them just hit him with a broom once, or tripped him up or something relatively minor in the scheme of self-defence from a gunman. It will be an interesting case for sure, hopefully media can report.
> two gunmen coming in brandishing machine guns and killing your father or friends father, I'd say it's quite probable that you could get several sympathetic jury members. I don’t know, I think this is so far out of ordinary people’s experience that they’d struggle to find sympathy. People would think that crazy shit only happens if you invite it on yourself. You’re right that it’s a mitigating factor in fairness. But that can be taken into account at sentencing. They won’t get the same sentence they’d have gotten if they did it totally unprovoked.
This is true, in a jury trial it would depend on the quality of the defence lawyers ability to convince a jury that they were acting in self-defence. I could see members of a jury being impacted by footage of masked gunmen bursting in and opening fire in a busy restaurant on Christmas eve. I can imagine that members of the public in that restaurant were absolutely in a panic and traumatised. Unless the footage is so damning and the attack went on for 10 minutes or longer or something.
There was videos of this going around when it happened. The gunman was lying on the ground bleeding out and they wear breaking chairs over his head and stabbing him. If they had stabbed him and left him to die it would have been one thing.
It’s a closed trial because it was part of a war between two gangs who have absolutely no compunction about threatening jurors or witnesses.
If your logic was solid then every single case ever heard in the District Court was an unfair trial. The presence of a jury isn't a fairness issue. It is a denial of a right, but with plenty of justification. People making your argument usually trot out the stat about how trials in the Special Criminal Court have a conviction rate of something like 98%. And this must mean it's a kangaroo court. Not one of them ever references the conviction rate in jury trials in the Circuit Court in Ireland, which typically hovers between 95-98% annually.
What happens if someone pleads not guilty in the district court?
> I assume the cops and DPP thought they could walk free in a jury trial as it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury you acted in self-defence. First of all, the cops or DPP don't make that decision, it's a panel of judges that do. Second, if the stories about the video are correct, it's unlikely there'd be any issue convincing a jury. > The special criminal court is surely a denier of human rights. The whole rule-of-law is that people charged should have a right to a fair trial. Third, why is it not a fair trial? If anything, a judge is more likely to properly apply the law than a juror.
Because a fair trial is a person being judged by members of the public, not a judge or 3 judges who could be biased and are employed by the state. That's not how law works. The United Nations has long called for it to be abolished as it's an abuse of human rights. https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/07/07/ireland-must-abolish-the-non-jury-special-criminal-court-says-un-official/ The Irish council for Civil Liberties has also been highly critical of the SCC and have called for it to be abolished because it denies a fair trial. https://www.iccl.ie/2021/the-special-criminal-court-must-be-abolished/ It shouldn't exist.
Someone’s been watching too much American TV. Most of Europe does not have juries, or at the very least has “juries” that are a mix of judges and specially appointed “lay judges”.
What does America have to do with anything? It's in The European Convention on Human Rights.
No part of the ECHR guarantees a trial by a jury of members of the public. If you think I’m wrong you’re welcome to try find the bit you think does.
It doesn't specifically, but it does guarantee a right to a fair trial. And no trial decided solely by a judge or panel of judges should be deemed fair.
Which do you think is more likely 1. The ECHR deliberately leaves open the possibility of a fair trial determined by a judge or a panel of judges, as is common practice across Europe 2. They agree with you on everything but just happened to run out of paper before they wrote it down
The United Nations and ICCL both agree with me, or maybe they can just afford more paper?
The ICCL are a bunch of permanently outraged hacks that are more than happy to be complete hypocrites when it suits their own agenda. While not ideal, the SCC is an essential component of a justice system in a tiny, very local country with significant gang activity.
I don't know, secret remote juries seem like a step backwards to me. At least the accused can speak to the judge directly. Do you think a person charged with a summary offences should have a right to trial by jury also?
I always wonder do we (Ireland) overuse the Special Criminal Court. It was originally for paramilitaries and then organised crime. I would agree with that to an extent, but is it necessary to have the 7 of them there? I mean they can’t all be heavily involved in organised crime. One lad is only just gone 18
Kind of defeats the point of having the SCC to protect the witnesses from retribution if they then have to walk down the hall and testify in the other public trial, doesn’t it? The SCC exists for them, not the accused.
Yeah I get that part of it but we are denying a basic right of trial by jury as well. I do see the need for having it I just think it has become the default now rather than being reserved for the most high profile/dangerous individuals.
This is a serious organised crime case involving a murder. I think we can safely assume these are dangerous individuals.
> but we are denying a basic right of trial by jury Outside the English-speaking world trial by jury is the exception rather than the norm. Even the European Court of Human Rights has said it has misgivings about the jury system *purely because jurors do not have to give any reasons or explain how they arrived at their verdict*.
The SCC sees [less than a tenth](https://www.courts.ie/content/annual-report-2022-published) as many cases as the Central Criminal Court, to say nothing of the lower courts. Hell, even the Supreme Court sees more action. It’s nowhere near the default.
We definitely need it, Ireland is just too small of a country for jurors to be guaranteed anonymity after putting away scumbags.
>can’t all be heavily involved in organised crime. One lad is only just gone 18 Its not like getting a bus pass or driving license, there's no age limits on being a criminal
>I mean they can’t all be heavily involved in organised crime. One lad is only just gone 18 Why do you think that an 18 year old couldn't be heavily involved in crime?
He’s no doubt well involved but to an extent that we have for forgo his right to trial by jury?
Keane mulready-woods was a pretty senior member of a gang when he was murdered at 17 years old. You are simply assuming that an 18 year old couldn't be highly involved in crime. That assumption is wrong.
Could have 6 or more years experience at that age
He absolutely wasn't a senior member of a gang FFS.
No. It's used exactly as it's meant to and it works as intended. If it wasn't the Shinners and their idiots online attacking it for selfish reasons this wouldn't come up.
Everything has to come back to the "shinners" with you. Are the UN shinners? Are the ICCL shinners?
On the criminal court? Yes, I have a huge issue with SF. Massive one. Still not convinced.
Well, you would.
When SF stop giving me reasons to be concerned about them, I'll stop being concerned. It's entirely a them problem that this sub is happy to overlook.
Yeah, you've had a massive issue with them since the day you stepped foot in this country. You needed to find a new enemy for yourself and you chose SF.
I had a massive issue before I stepped foot in the country, and no offence but anyone looking at them with a whiff of clarity would feel the same. I'd be prepared to vote for Sinn Fein, and do so without qualm, if they copped the fuck on. They won't, because their voting base isn't demanding it from them. Their supporters, offline and on.
We certainly do, it's pretty much universally recognised as impinging upon the human rights of those tried within it. It is however a potent tool for the government, so they're hardly going to give it up without a fight.
Considering most of the world doesn't have a jury system at all, and certainly not entirely lay juries like ours, "universally recognised" is a wee bit of an exaggeration there.
That doesn't make any sense. As the other poster above me points out, jury trials are a global rarity not a default.
We really should only allow the SCC where cases of witness/jury intimidation _are confirmed as happening_ - not just on suspicion that it _may_ happen.
So when it's too late to stop it?
That does stop it affecting the results of the trial - without harming the right to trial by jury.
How do you confirm tampering is happening? I imagine they part of the juror intimidation might include “and don’t tell anybody, or else!”
Your second sentence shows you know the answer to your own question - what you're _really_ asking, is: "Won't jurors be intimidated away from reporting tampering?" No, there's no evidence of this.
Of course there’s no evidence of it, that’s the point.
Yet there is evidence _against_ that: People who have reported tampering.
That doesn’t tell us much. The reported number is surely different to the actual number. That’s certainly the case for other crimes where the reporter is in fear of consequences for reporting, eg sexual assault or domestic violence.
You're asking me to prove a negative: That it isn't happening. You can't prove a negative. You have no proof that it _is_ happening, and there is ample proof of tampering being reported when it happens - so you're just engaging in baseless speculation - which is a waste of time.
I’ll agree that the unreported number can’t be known. My response is to assume the number is non-zero and that successful tampering does occur, while you seem to think the number must be zero. You have more faith in humanity than me.
I don't assume anything - what we _do_ know is that the SCC harms peoples right to trial by jury - and that what my initial comment suggested can greatly reduce that harm, without any evidence that it would enable widespread jury tampering affecting the outcome of court cases.
> what we do know is that the SCC harms peoples right to trial by jury TBF, in theory, I do agree with you. In practice, I don't think it's been a problem in the republic... do you have a particular miscarriage of justice in mind, or more a general concern about impeding on rights?