Messages

What did  we  expect McGuinness was going to say? .... Aye,  you're right. I'm fecked here .  Throw the book at me. Definitely a long  ban  coming my way, and I'll deserve it?

A polite politician style response perhaps?  This brings more attention to it.

Great game. Fair play to Cork. Some performance from Sheridan

This 'row' is a prime example of why Burns should set up an Independent Review Committee.

Then deal with stuff like this every Monday. Deal with everything the referees etc. can't deal with.

It would end this sort of waffle.

You know there is one but the rules are terribly opaque and hard to enforce resulting in spectacular inconsistency. Connaire Mackin was banned by it after Derry in 24. That was the last one I was involved in. Not sure how many there have been since.

Genuine question but with the current format are you better losing or winning this round?

I know the obvious answer is winning as it gives you two shots at making the quarterfinal but my concern is this.

If you win and we assume everyone at this stage is trying to win then you have the best teams in round 2A so it's a hard match potentially away.

Lose that you are playing the following week against a team coming off a win. You also have to play the following week again.

Alternatively if you lose the first round you have the jeopardy of straight knock out immediately but theoretically against an easier team and then you have some momentum into a preliminary quarterfinal against a team coming off a defeat the weekend before.

I can see advantages to both approaches. I think the teams playing round 1 a bit later have obviously more knowledge who is in which pot for round 2 and they may be a factor.

Lose and you're potentially facing Donegal/Kerry in a do or die game. I know what I'd rather!

True but win or lose you could find yourself facing them in successive matches having to pick yourself up after losing to one of them

My point is I'm not sure a win is as beneficial as it might be.

You could end up with 7 of the top 8 or so teams in Round 2A. So your win could be an away trip to say Kerry. Which if you lose you could have a 6 day turn around to play Donegal.

Genuine question but with the current format are you better losing or winning this round?

I know the obvious answer is winning as it gives you two shots at making the quarterfinal but my concern is this.

If you win and we assume everyone at this stage is trying to win then you have the best teams in round 2A so it's a hard match potentially away.

Lose that you are playing the following week against a team coming off a win. You also have to play the following week again.

Alternatively if you lose the first round you have the jeopardy of straight knock out immediately but theoretically against an easier team and then you have some momentum into a preliminary quarterfinal against a team coming off a defeat the weekend before.

I can see advantages to both approaches. I think the teams playing round 1 a bit later have obviously more knowledge who is in which pot for round 2 and they may be a factor.

How come she was all fine before this came about, same with Peter Robinson wife, i just cant see Joe Bloggs not been took to trial for this. Hell if u a borderline psycopath u still be seeing a trial.

How do we know she was fine?  The process she has gone through is the exact same process any defendant would have gone through if there were concerns over their fitness to give instructions.

Would there be many examples of working class people going down this path? That's ultimately what people will see this as. Someone of status getting what they would deem as preferential treatment.

Absolutely there's plenty at an estimate of say between 5 and 10% of cases. They just don't tend to attract press coverage.

I have 6 such cases at the moment

All with the same process as Lady Donaldson went through with many of the same experts and similar concerns.

I understand the optics are bad. I think that's a combination of a number of factors. Poor reporting, social media, human nature, a lack of education on actual procedures etc to name just a few of those.

Even then 5% or 10% would be very low I would imagine if you put that up against the percentage of people from the working classes going through the courts.

The way it works is as experienced lawyers we tend to have a fair idea when someone is borderline fit to give instructions. We also have a knowledge of the legal test.

Talking personally if I had any concerns I'd direct reports immediately and then see what the experts think. I'd say my colleagues would be the same. I've had two cases ever that I can recall where my solicitors who are also highly experienced have disagreed but by and large we are usually in agreement. So we know with a high degree of accuracy when fitness is an issue.

As I say it's an issue in I'd approximate anywhere between 5 and 10 % of cases. That's still a lot of people.

As a result of how few properly qualified experts there are in the area the process can take between 9 months and 2 years. Lady Donaldson's process took exactly how long I would have expected it to take had she been a legally aided working class individual.

How come she was all fine before this came about, same with Peter Robinson wife, i just cant see Joe Bloggs not been took to trial for this. Hell if u a borderline psycopath u still be seeing a trial.

How do we know she was fine?  The process she has gone through is the exact same process any defendant would have gone through if there were concerns over their fitness to give instructions.

Would there be many examples of working class people going down this path? That's ultimately what people will see this as. Someone of status getting what they would deem as preferential treatment.

Absolutely there's plenty at an estimate of say between 5 and 10% of cases. They just don't tend to attract press coverage.

I have 6 such cases at the moment

All with the same process as Lady Donaldson went through with many of the same experts and similar concerns.

I understand the optics are bad. I think that's a combination of a number of factors. Poor reporting, social media, human nature, a lack of education on actual procedures etc to name just a few of those.

David, you're going to be tortured with questions and queries during this trial. 

Maybe take a holiday for a week or two...without your phone.

I actually am on holiday from next Thursday but always happy to help to the extent I can.

How come she was all fine before this came about, same with Peter Robinson wife, i just cant see Joe Bloggs not been took to trial for this. Hell if u a borderline psycopath u still be seeing a trial.

How do we know she was fine?  The process she has gone through is the exact same process any defendant would have gone through if there were concerns over their fitness to give instructions.

Would there be many examples of working class people going down this path? That's ultimately what people will see this as. Someone of status getting what they would deem as preferential treatment.

Absolutely there's plenty at an estimate of say between 5 and 10% of cases. They just don't tend to attract press coverage.

I have 6 such cases at the moment

All with the same process as Lady Donaldson went through with many of the same experts and similar concerns.

I understand the optics are bad. I think that's a combination of a number of factors. Poor reporting, social media, human nature, a lack of education on actual procedures etc to name just a few of those.

How come she was all fine before this came about, same with Peter Robinson wife, i just cant see Joe Bloggs not been took to trial for this. Hell if u a borderline psycopath u still be seeing a trial.

How do we know she was fine?  The process she has gone through is the exact same process any defendant would have gone through if there were concerns over their fitness to give instructions.

I don't think she'll get off with it if they are found guilty, I just think she doesn't have to show her face in court and her counsel will speak for her? I'm sure David will confirm

She can not be found guilty. She will instead face a fact finding hearing. Either alongside Jeffrey's trial or at a later date.

A fact finding hearing doesn't assess guilt or innocence but does assess whether someone did the act.

If there is an adverse finding then the range of options open to the court is different. They range from an absolute discharge to a hospital order.

How many people try/go down this route  ?

It's not common but it's not unusual. It's usually not their choice either. If I have a concern about a client and their ability to provide me with instructions I'll direct they see experts. The court will do the same. It's not the case that I client will come and say I'm not fit for this. They occasionally do but they invariably always are fit.

It's also not an easy way out. Finding of facts against and potential hospital orders are not easy things to live with.

Easier than dying in prison?

Possibly. I don't fancy either option to be fair

I don't think she'll get off with it if they are found guilty, I just think she doesn't have to show her face in court and her counsel will speak for her? I'm sure David will confirm

She can not be found guilty. She will instead face a fact finding hearing. Either alongside Jeffrey's trial or at a later date.

A fact finding hearing doesn't assess guilt or innocence but does assess whether someone did the act.

If there is an adverse finding then the range of options open to the court is different. They range from an absolute discharge to a hospital order.

How many people try/go down this route  ?

It's not common but it's not unusual. It's usually not their choice either. If I have a concern about a client and their ability to provide me with instructions I'll direct they see experts. The court will do the same. It's not the case that I client will come and say I'm not fit for this. They occasionally do but they invariably always are fit.

It's also not an easy way out. Finding of facts against and potential hospital orders are not easy things to live with.

I don't think she'll get off with it if they are found guilty, I just think she doesn't have to show her face in court and her counsel will speak for her? I'm sure David will confirm

She can not be found guilty. She will instead face a fact finding hearing. Either alongside Jeffrey's trial or at a later date.

A fact finding hearing doesn't assess guilt or innocence but does assess whether someone did the act.

If there is an adverse finding then the range of options open to the court is different. They range from an absolute discharge to a hospital order.

So is chronic anxiety something that every sufferer is entitled to use in future to avoid trial for crimes?

The issue isn't what do they suffer from it's do they meet the Pritchard criteria.

IE have two highly qualified experts assessed that they can't


1. Understand the course of the proceedings;
2. Understand the evidence;
3. Instruct lawyers properly;
4. Challenge jurors (historically included, though now of limited practical importance);
5. Enter a plea; and
6. Give evidence in their own defence if they choose.

Well done Armagh to finally win Ulster.

I agree the first half score flattered Monaghan.  Armagh nearly had two goals and an 8 point lead would have seemed more reflective of the play.

The game did have a feel of "Armagh aren't meant to win".  We can't understate the value of Monaghan's win over Derry.  Psychologically it gives a team the confidence that no lead is too much.  Plus all the 2 pointers they hit in the SF(was it 7?) can a team defend against that?  Certainly the Dessie Ward kick against Derry in extra time could not have been stopped by anyone.

It was no surprise to see Armagh's 6 point cushion vanish in the blink of an eye.  I believe Monaghan only had two 2 pointers in the game.  Did the weather conditions take that weapon away from them?

One other question: have penalty kicks been abolished for provincial finals but are still part of the game for everything else?

Personally I don't think Monaghan have the talent to go far in the AI competition.  However they'll be a dangerous opponent, just as Derry.  I can't help but wonder when managers will "go nuclear" on the 2 point strategy.  It's such a devastating weapon when you can score twice as much each time.

Finals aren't winner on the day. It's extra time and a replay first. Penalties if necessary at the replay. All other rounds I think are winner on the day.

How was that not given as a handball in the Forest game?

Shows what shambles the handball rule has become now, nailed on free kick, no idea how they ended up awarding the goal.

Came off the knee first and apparently had Mbeumo scored it would be disallowed. The ref applied the rule in place but I can imagine another tweak of the hand ball rule is required before next season.

Totally get the rationale and the ref is to be applauded for going with the rules, but it does look farcical.

Even the fact the EPL and CL have different interpretations of it is a complete joke.

It's one of those which by letter of the law should have been allowed but by spirit of the game should not. I've said several times of the last few years I don't understand the handball rule anymore. It now reminds me of the car with the dent in father Ted.

I see Dermot Gallagher on ref watch said it shouldn't have stood but could make no reference to the rules why not other than to say the ref should have ignored the directive on how to interpret what happened.