The ulster rugby trial

[AQMP]

Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.

OK, a poll on how long they'll get??

[GetOverTheBar]

I'd be curious to know how many posters have sat on a jury? We've had a legal perspective on what's going on but it'll be people from a non legal background who'll decide the outcome of this trial.

Sat in a case not too unlike this about 5-6 years ago, not involving anyone of public profile. Judge wouldn't accept a majority decision (there was an issue involving the exact mental age the defendent in this case was operating at) which had resulted in a statemate wth regards to unanimous decision. The judge in the end had to direct the 2/3 unsure of what to do. In the end the guilty verdict was found, found correctly at that.

[trueblue1234]

Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.

I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."

[Milltown Row2]

I'd be curious to know how many posters have sat on a jury? We've had a legal perspective on what's going on but it'll be people from a non legal background who'll decide the outcome of this trial.

I sat on a trial 8 years ago, lasted about a week, armed robbery. 

Your man O'Donoghue was one of the barristers

guilty?

Yeah and as the case went on it was fairly obvious, we couldn't get one of the jurors to turn, we all gave reasons why we thought he was guilty, based on the evidence we heard, but this fella just kept saying "I don't think he did it". Always thought he knew the defendant or knew of him. So he was found guilty by majority.

Aye he's bound to have known him or was approached, does this happen? though I'd say if he was robbing a bank he could have hardly offered him money!!

[Minder]

I'd be curious to know how many posters have sat on a jury? We've had a legal perspective on what's going on but it'll be people from a non legal background who'll decide the outcome of this trial.

I sat on a trial 8 years ago, lasted about a week, armed robbery. 

Your man O'Donoghue was one of the barristers

guilty?

Yeah and as the case went on it was fairly obvious, we couldn't get one of the jurors to turn, we all gave reasons why we thought he was guilty, based on the evidence we heard, but this fella just kept saying "I don't think he did it". Always thought he knew the defendant or knew of him. So he was found guilty by majority.

Aye he's bound to have known him or was approached, does this happen? though I'd say if he was robbing a bank he could have hardly offered him money!!

He was robbing a chemist at the top of the Shankill !

[Taylor]

How long are deliberations likely to last?

[AQMP]

How long are deliberations likely to last?

God only knows, as long as it takes.

Some say that if the jury comes back quickly it's likely to be a guilty verdict and the longer it takes the more likely it is to be not guilty, or maybe that just in films!

[quit yo jibbajabba]

re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis

[Milltown Row2]

re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis

Great film, yet to be bettered, UNTIL NOW!

[johnnycool]

re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis

I watched re-runs of Ally McBeal, I think I could give this law malarkey a good go.

Syferus,
    What law school did you attend? What is the entrance criteria?

[NAG1]

re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis

I watched re-runs of Ally McBeal, I think I could give this law malarkey a good go.

Syferus,
    What law school did you attend? What is the entrance criteria?

One of those Trump Universities 

[screenexile]

re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis

I watched re-runs of Ally McBeal, I think I could give this law malarkey a good go.

Syferus,
    What law school did you attend? What is the entrance criteria?

I think he's a big fan of the good wife . . . lots of top lawyer stuff in that it obviously gave him a good grounding in it!

[magpie seanie]

Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.

I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."

If no one quotes him (among others) I'll never see them.

[Syferus]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put

Thank you and conveniently ignored....as always.

I'm a bit disappointed to see you joining my fan club because you seemed like a pretty sound poster who wasn't swayed by the mob up until now. Regardless..

Let's make this very simple - do you really think there are not some very unscrupulous defence solicitors? I know plenty of those types of people in my field and the stakes are far lower than someone's liberty.

You and a few others seem to have an incredibly black and white approach on certain topics - saying someone can hire a defence solicitor that will do everything in his/her power to get their client off as long as they they think they can get away with it does not mean there aren't plenty of good, upstanding defence solicitors too. Why you'd conflate the two things I do not know.

Another obvious point is that those with deep pockets have a better chance of acquittal in pretty much every court system in existence. Why is that, BC1? To me it's pretty obvious that more money means better representation, and in many cases that better representation seems to mean pushing boundaries because the pay cheque and the stakes are higher for the solicitor too. Do you not accept that if you have a reputation for getting your clients off it means you can charge more for your services, and that the inverse is also true? To suggest that their de facto duty is simply to the justice system and not to their client in those situations is a bit strange, because the conflict of interest is quite plain for anyone to see.

The system pushes defence solicitors in that direction so it's probably more a fault in the system than the 'player', but to say it doesn't exist at all is frankly meaningless legalese.

[brokencrossbar1]

I'm a bit disappointed to see you joining my fan club because you seemed like a pretty sound poster who wasn't swayed by the mob up until now. Regardless..

First things first, I'm not swayed by the 'mob'....I have taken great exception and insult from your denigration of the legal profession and the 'murky reality' that exists according to you. As someone who has worked in this reality I know that you're talking nonsense hence my attack on your post, I am standing up for my professions integrity and also the integrity of a number of my friends who are involved in this trial at counsel and solicitor level hence my desire to knock you down.

Let's make this very simple - do you really think there are not some very unscrupulous defence solicitors? I know plenty of those types of people in my field and the stakes are far lower than someone's liberty.

Unscrupulous?  What have scruples got to do with this?  If a solicitor can work within the boundaries of the law that exist and stretch those boundaries to get the better argument how is that unscrupulous? And what is unscrupulous anyway?  You give me examples of how they were unscrupulous in this trial and I will deal with them but on my opinion they all, prosecution and defence, did what was necessary and allowable within the system to do the best job for their clients. That's not unscrupulous, that's being professional and thorough.

You and a few others seem to have an incredibly black and white approach on certain topics - saying someone can hire a defence solicitor that will do everything in his/her power to get their client off as long as they they think they can get away with it does not mean there aren't plenty of good, upstanding defence solicitors too. Why you'd conflate the two things I do not know.

See my previous point

Another obvious point is that those with deep pockets have a better chance of acquittal in pretty much every court system in existence. Why is that, BC1? To me it's pretty obvious that more money means better representation, and in many cases that better representation seems to mean pushing boundaries because the pay cheque and the stakes are higher for the solicitor too. Do you not accept that if you have a reputation for getting your clients off it means you can charge more for your services, and that the inverse is also true? To suggest that their de facto duty is simply to the justice system and not to their client in those situations is a bit strange, because the conflict of interest is quite plain for anyone to see.

Pretty much every court system in existence?  How many have you studied in depth?  Seriously?  Answer me that. Here's what I'll tell you. If it was jimmy Jackson and unemployed druggie from the Shankill guess what....he would have 2 counsel available to him more than likely under legal aid. He would have Kevin Winters and Co or Joe Rice or any number of top criminal
Law firms as his Solicitors. They would have the same experts and same resources available to them as they would if they were paying for it themselves. This is not the USA where the Johnny Corchrane's of the world play celebrity attorneys with peoples lives. For all it's faults the justice system in Northern Ireland in particular is one of the most respected and robust ones that there is due to the fallout from miscarriages of justices over the years from the Troubles. It's not perfect but everyone has the same rights in the eyes of the law so you're talking through your arse about big pockets win decisions.

The system pushes defence solicitors in that direction so it's probably more a fault in the system than the 'player', but to say it doesn't exist at all is frankly meaningless legalese.

The reality is that the Defence did everything within their remit and control to defend these men. They have a system to work within and used it to the best of their abilities for their clients. If you don't think it is the right system that's your opinion. Come up with a better one and be a law reformer. You have taken a very hardline approach on this subject and that is your right. I have taken an open minded one and thought at different times it could have gone either way. You don't know not do I what exactly happened. We form opinions and then debate them. Anyone who has had a contrary opinion to you has been shouted down and called an apologist or the like. That is the approach of a fundamentalist type mindset which is generally a weak point of view as it's never fully rounded nor is it allowed to be challenged therefor it does not have proper foundations. If these men are found guilty then that is the right decision, if they are found not guilty that too is the right decision as it has been made by the now 11 people who have sat through the evidence and made an informed decision. There may be legal appeal points but that's for another day.