Messages

With the news that Warner has dislocated his ankle that likely brings to 7 the number of players I drafted who have already been placed on IR. I've also had the Baltimore defence and two WR who have lost their QB.

Whilst I wouldn't at all like that the Kneecap lad run the risk of being tagged a terrorist fellow-traveler and all that entails but I'd have a strong curiosity as to how this case would pan out in court with a legal 'dream team' taking on a censorious establishment wielding a repressive legal tool of inverse political wokeness against a form of expression made on stage by an artist in the context of a serious humanitarian cause that just happens to clash with the government's 'greater' agenda.

It does strike me as a case with the potential to go very far but take years to resolve.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the law and nuance around arts, do you think *legally* he is guilty? Or at least in potential trouble?

I don't know enough about the case to be honest. It is a quite well developed area of the law because it has to balance the right to freedom of expression against what the law deems hate speech. I wouldn't like to call it at this stage. I would think a dismissal on a technicality might suit all sides

Whilst I wouldn't at all like that the Kneecap lad run the risk of being tagged a terrorist fellow-traveler and all that entails but I'd have a strong curiosity as to how this case would pan out in court with a legal 'dream team' taking on a censorious establishment wielding a repressive legal tool of inverse political wokeness against a form of expression made on stage by an artist in the context of a serious humanitarian cause that just happens to clash with the government's 'greater' agenda.

It does strike me as a case with the potential to go very far but take years to resolve.

CPS appealing the decision. You'd have thought they wouldn't want the hassle of it.

To be fair it's much more to do with establishing a point of law rather than looking to nail O'Hannidh. AFAIK it's not a new law so it's strange the interpretation has not been established before now.

It's not as strange as you'd think it might be. Often technical matters might be decided at first instance but if they are the judgements are not binding and it often takes a high profile case to set the precedent. That's because higher profile cases tend to be appealed more often for a plethora of reasons.

So if that court hasn't jurisdiction, then can the Met go to another court which may have jurisdiction or is that a stupid question from the uninformed?

Not a stupid question. Short answer is no. These types of offences have to be dealt with in the Magistrates Court.  The magistrates court though is what's called a creature of statute. In other words for it to be able to deal with cases they must be presented to the court in a manner compliant with statute. The Magistrate (who I think was legally qualified in this case) has ruled that wasn't done therefore he can't hear the case.

So if that court hasn't jurisdiction, then can the Met go to another court which may have jurisdiction or is that a stupid question from the uninformed?

The Crown prosecution service can appeal this decision but I don't think they will.

Not an appeal as such but similar. Much more common in England and Wales than it is over here so they may go down that route.

Well done to the solicitors and barristers instructed in the case and to Phoenix for their involvement as well.

Anyone have their ticket for the Dublin Steelers v Vikings game delivered yet? I am still waiting on mine.

I ordered two sets of two on release day. One set of two have been delivered but not the other two.

Yes mine was delivered shortly after I posted here. Have yours been delivered yet? Have you seen the list of what is and isn't allowed into the stadium?

No still only one set of the two. I can see both sets in my account but only one is available for delivery. Haven't seen the list

... At the start of the hearing, O hAnnaidh stood to confirm his name, date of birth and current address, speaking in Irish with his words translated by an interpreter. The judge then summarised his judgement for the court ...

Frankly that is f**king legendary, think of the historical context where native Irish speakers were sentenced and charged without being able to understand the charges against them or offer a defence because the charges delivered on Irish soil by English judges were spoken in English and the native tongue was not accounted for

The salty **** of a magistrate ... Mr Goldspring said the purpose of the hearing was not to determine O hAnnaidh's innocence or guilt, but about whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. Take your f**king beating lad

You are going to have to explain that last line to me

My point stands:

1. Israel tries to equate any criticism of them as support of Hamas.
2. Kneecap shouting 'Up Hamas' gives Israel an open goal.

It's simple and irrefutable.

Mo Chara left himself open to this by what he shouted and will be used to build the case that he supports a proscribed organisation but make no bones about this the spotlight was shone on them after the Coachella thing in the US.

It looks like the defence are questioning whether the court have jurisdiction on this matter, anyone shed any light on that for us less well informed in the legal gymnastics at play? 

Yes although I think the reporting must be wrong. Either that or I can't read a calendar. The reporting suggesting the issue is one of the case being what's called statute barred.

This offence is what's known as a summary offence meaning it can only be heard in the Magistrates Court. It can not be heard in the Crown Court. Most summary offences (including this one) must be commenced within 6 months. Proceedings are commenced when a complaint is made to a lay magistrate not when a summons is issued. The complained of offence occurred in November. The proceedings don't seem to have been commenced until May. I can't remember the specific dates of either of those but a google suggests the CPS laid the complaint in time (just).

Is the English 6 months thing similar to this bit in Irish law that relates to time between offence and summons?
'Generally speaking, a summons must issue within 6 months of the offence if it is to be dealt with by summary disposal'
https://www.michaelstaines.ie/what-to-do-when-you-receive-a-summons

Yes it steams from pre partition. Been a bit of a divergence over the last century but not much.

In my own defence here the reporting was incorrect at the time. It was a more nuanced point. The CPS lead the charges in time but without the requisite authority to lay. They got that authority and relaid them out of time. Hence my calendar confusion.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

I meant from a legal point of view. Convictions in which hearsay is the sole or decisive evidence are generally considered unsafe.

So given the reporting of the crowns application and Judge Lynchs written decision, my early feelings are that this is a case very unlikely to meet the high bar required for a conviction.

Also relatedly admission is only the first step, the judge will have to determine what weight he can safely place on same given the inability of the defence to cross examine.

It's certainly not impossible that a conviction would result but I'd be more surprised now if it did than I would have been two weeks ago.

None of this is anything to do with Solider F's guilt of innocence simply whether or not a safe conviction is likely.

But presumably that is all appelate court stuff? The judge has allowed the testimony which will say he openly admitted to murder and admitted it to two others who felt the need to put it in writing

No this will all be the legal issues the trial judge will have to consider at the close of the prosecution case.  Just because a statement has been admitted does not mean the Judge believes it or is willing to place weight on it.  Even if he does he will to determine if it amounts to the sole or decisive evidence against the accused.  If it is it is unlikely that a Judge will ever say in any case that a conviction based on hear say would be safe.

This is all well before any appellate court, which by the way because this is a diplock trial there is an automatic right of appeal too.

Is justice being served by trying an elderly soldier for murder/s that he was ordered to do by a senior officer who does not face trial nor the people above that officer  who gave the sanction to go ahead.

The law doesn't recognise a defence of superior orders and hasn't since Nuremberg. Individuals are still responsible for their own actions. Each case will turn on its own facts but I think it's certainly not against the public interest to prosecute those accused of murder even if their superior officers were the ones that gave the order.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

I meant from a legal point of view. Convictions in which hearsay is the sole or decisive evidence are generally considered unsafe.

So given the reporting of the crowns application and Judge Lynchs written decision, my early feelings are that this is a case very unlikely to meet the high bar required for a conviction.

Also relatedly admission is only the first step, the judge will have to determine what weight he can safely place on same given the inability of the defence to cross examine.

It's certainly not impossible that a conviction would result but I'd be more surprised now if it did than I would have been two weeks ago.

None of this is anything to do with Solider F's guilt of innocence simply whether or not a safe conviction is likely.

Was common knowledge that the whole prosecution case hinged on those statements being allowed? I wouldn't have known any details but had read last week that if they were allowed there was some chance of conviction and if not then basically none.

Lets hope for some sort of justice at least for families.

Maybe I'm not explaining it well. Without those statements the prosecution have accepted the case would be over.

What's strange to me is the arguments made to have them admitted. The crown concede they are the sole and decisive evidence in the case (according to reports), the concede they are inconsistent with other statements from the same witness, they concede the difficulties in having to cherry pick the truth from them. All of those are factors and arguments that would ordinarily be made by the defence as either a reason not to admit the evidence and/or an application not to place any weight on it were they to be admitted.

In the written Judgement the trial judge sets out that The Crown case, by their own acknowledgment, is totally dependent upon hearsay statements. It's difficult to see how as a general principle any conviction in general could be safe if it's totally dependent on hearsay statements.

So what I am saying is yes technically the case would have most likely ended immediately if the hearsay was not admitted but it doesn't follow that there's a great chance that a conviction will result just because they were admitted. Same still seems unlikely.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

I meant from a legal point of view. Convictions in which hearsay is the sole or decisive evidence are generally considered unsafe.

So given the reporting of the crowns application and Judge Lynchs written decision, my early feelings are that this is a case very unlikely to meet the high bar required for a conviction.

Also relatedly admission is only the first step, the judge will have to determine what weight he can safely place on same given the inability of the defence to cross examine.

It's certainly not impossible that a conviction would result but I'd be more surprised now if it did than I would have been two weeks ago.

None of this is anything to do with Solider F's guilt of innocence simply whether or not a safe conviction is likely.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Anyone have their ticket for the Dublin Steelers v Vikings game delivered yet? I am still waiting on mine.

I ordered two sets of two on release day. One set of two have been delivered but not the other two.