Messages

Yes please

What's the threshold  crime level for deportation  from  say, Australia or the US?

In the US it's an offence that offends against moral turpitude within 5 years or two or more life time. (Offence must carry a minimum maximum sentence of 1 year.

Alternatively an aggravated felony will almost certainly result in deportation

Drugs firearms and domestic violence offences can also result in deportation

Some states have more nuanced rules although it's by and large a federal matter.

See the DUP'ers are crying that the girl in the car was released on bail, hilarious but probably strange to get bail on a case like that?

The continual attempts by the DUP/UUP/TUV to undermine the justice system need to be nipped in the bud as far as I'm concerned. Particularly from those who know how the system operates. 

Those who don't I could understand but not those who do.

For those who don't as I'm sometimes asked for a brief overview I'll post it here.

In all criminal cases the starting point is the presumption of innocence, from that flows the presumption in favour of bail.

With some nuanced differences between north and south therefore bail can only be refused on certain limited basis.

There is a risk of reoffending if released on bail (technically this reoffending ought to be linked to the offence but that has been eroded over the last two decades).

There is a risk of interference with witness or the investigation (for example by recovering and concealing evidence)

There is a risk of non attendance or flight if released.

There is a risk of public disorder of released. Very very rarely used ground was argued in the Craigavon two case and was highly criticised academically at the time)

Risk to the persons safety (only available at police stations in Northern Ireland) and not a ground can be relied upon by a Court in Northern Ireland.

If the police/guards/prosecution can satisfy the court that one of these grounds is made out then the accused can still get bail if they can persuade the court that the risk identified can be properly managed by appropriate conditions.

So what you will note is that the seriousness is not a ground to refuse bail. It is a factor that feeds into objections for bail. For example a more serious allegation may heightened the risk of flight because an individual is more likely to flea if they are ultimately facing a more serious charge.

But bail is a balancing exercise considered on an individual basis that will examine all of the issues relating to the offence and the alleged offender.

As a result you simply can't say you got bail for this offence whilst someone else didn't get bail for that offence. It's far more nuanced and professionally approached than that and politicians either do or should know that before they try and influence individual judicial discretion in this manner.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/jeffrey-donaldson-lodges-appeal-against-rape-and-sexual-assault-convictions-but-faces-battle-to-overturn-verdicts/a/158884886.html

Ulster Unionist leader Jon Burrows responded to the news of Donaldson's intention to appeal by saying: "This man is an utter disgrace, as is his wife Eleanor. His eventual sentencing should reflect his complete lack of remorse."

A successful appeal would have to be founded on points of law which Donaldson claims mean he didn't get a fair trial.
The judge's decision to run the trial of the facts alongside a criminal trial is likely to form the core of Donaldson's appeal. Even if he was to succeed in quashing all the convictions, Donaldson would not simply walk free.

Instead, he would face a retrial before a new jury. There would be no way to have the case heard by a judge alone, and it would not be possible to move the case outside Northern Ireland.

A lot of this isn't right. Burrows again showing a complete ignorance of the criminal justice system too.

Just waiting for him to get off on a technicality now....

Thankfully that doesn't happen

Great. What's likely to happen/worst case scenario

David deffo one my top ten fav solicitors 😜

I hope I'm 8th.

What happens now is that the defence have lodged a written argument for leave to appeal. That argument will be considered along with the recording or transcript of any relevant part of the trial by a Single High Court Judge. The Judge will consider whether the argument discloses an arguable case with a reasonable prospect of success that the conviction is unsafe.

If the Judge rules they have then an oral hearing will take place before a three Judge panel chaired by either a Lord Justice of Appeal or the Chief Justice. That panel will decide if the conviction was safe. If it was then the appeal will be dismissed. If it was not safe they will quash the conviction. The Crown will then decide whether to seek a retrial. That will be guided to a considerable degree by the reason for the decision and by the views of the complainants.

If leave is refused by the single judge the defence may either abandon the appeal at that stage or can ask the three Judge panel to consider the issue of leave (which if granted will then proceed as above).

Again the test isn't has their been an error of law. The test to be applied is is the conviction unsafe.

If he is allowed to appeal is it a full run of the previous trial, putting those girls through the wringer again?

Possibly two if the reasons for the appeal being reported are accurate

What selection of jurors at this stage with all the other stuff surfacing would be able to come to any other decision?

Long way away from worrying about that.

Just waiting for him to get off on a technicality now....

Thankfully that doesn't happen

9 years ago.

Couldnt find any more recent. Would imagine with new rules there is an updated version.

Hawkeye is overly complicated tech and does not account for balls that would hit the post and go over.

Is it really that over complicated? 

I don't think the images they show are helpful either they often appear much straighter than the shot looks in real life.

Refs need to make split decisions on sometimes unfavourable line of sight angles so wrong calls are understandable.

But after having the benefit of time and multiple replay angles, I really don't understand how anyone can say it was a definite penalty. If anyone got charged in the chest it was the Dublin player. And that's a stretch too. Whoever sees a foul in there may as well make it a no contact sport.

I really can't see how you can say it wasn't. The angle from low looking towards the hill which was similar to the angle that the ref has makes it look stone wall in the POCB turns his shoulder straight into the Kerry players chest. A clear foul that I would expect to see given all day long. I am genuinely surprised it's even a talking point.

Because I've looked at it from each angle. I don't know where you're getting hitting on the chest of the Kerry player from either, he is nowhere near his chest. Kerry player turns into the tackle leading with the shoulder. Dublin player has feet firmly planted into ground and attempts to meet square with shoulder. Kerry player comes into the tackle side on with feet a little off the ground just before impact and slightly off balance which leaves it that it's not a clean contact shoulder to shoulder. If anyone was hit in the chest it's the defender. 

I acknowledged referee mightn't have the best angle at the time but I don't know how anyone can now claim a penalty with benefit of multiple angles.

We will have to agree to disagree then. The angle I'm referring to makes it clear to me that the last movement is by POCB and it's a movement of his left shoulder towards and through the chest of the attacker.

Of course I could be wrong it certainly wouldn't be the first time but there's nothing I've seen to suggest it wasn't a foul.

Dublin should be aggrieved by the Square Ball non decision but apart from that I think Cawley got it right.

It was far from the worst referring we have seen this year.

Refs need to make split decisions on sometimes unfavourable line of sight angles so wrong calls are understandable.

But after having the benefit of time and multiple replay angles, I really don't understand how anyone can say it was a definite penalty. If anyone got charged in the chest it was the Dublin player. And that's a stretch too. Whoever sees a foul in there may as well make it a no contact sport.

I really can't see how you can say it wasn't. The angle from low looking towards the hill which was similar to the angle that the ref has makes it look stone wall in the POCB turns his shoulder straight into the Kerry players chest. A clear foul that I would expect to see given all day long. I am genuinely surprised it's even a talking point.

Refs handbook. Maybe useful for some after weekend

https://www.gaa.ie/api/images/image/upload/t_q-best/ogd9kegh1slxnvvuwmll.pdf

Ref kit for anyone interested

https://learning.gaa.ie/sites/default/files/2026-04/GAA%20Match%20Official%20Equipment%20Suppliers.pdf

That is between 8 and 10 years old. I assume there's a more up to date one which might resolve some rules queries.

Interestingly I notice it suggests that at times Hawkeye will be inconclusive. I dont think I have ever seen that. I do remember seeing it being misconfigured for the wrong game but not returning an inconclusive result. I wonder what the margin of error is.

2nd year of the All-Ireland semi-finals done and dusted under the new rules none of the 4 games was close to what FRC hoped for let's be honest.

2nd year in a row we got a mis-match at the semi final stage. Credit to Mayo,Donegal going about their business though no neutrals wants to see a non contest semi-final.

Kerry had a routine win against Tyrone last year and yesterday was probably the worst quality Kerry v Dublin match since 2015 and that game had the excuse of poor weather.

2021 to 2024 All-Ireland semi-finals had Armagh beating Kerry,Tyrone beating Kerry and Mayo beating Dublin after extra time all memorable contests.

Also had Galway beating Donegal by 2 points,Kerry beat Dublin by 1 and Kerry beating Derry by 2. 

Biggest margin win of all those All-Ireland semi-finals was Dublin by 7 points against Monaghan and that match was level with 10 minutes to play.

It's probably still too small a sample size for the new rules but I do think the old rules weren't as bad as people made out, especially summer football. As you correctly point out there were some unreal games in the latter stages of 2021 to 2024. 2024 final was terrible though, which helped people support the new rules.

Obvious bias aside I still don't get this narrative about the 2024 final. Both commentators and the RTE pundits were full of praise on the day. Fitzmaurice on several occasions described it as the best final of recent years.

Showing goalline clearance again, looks over but the camera on the bck stanchion and not in line. so is the rule partially over or all over?

3.1

A goal is scored when the ball is played over the goal-line between the posts and under the crossbar by either team.

I read that as fully over but who knows.

I have yet to see an angle that proves it conclusively one way or another. In those circumstances I think it's hard to criticise the officials whatever decision they give.

Pretty sure I saw/heard before that the ball has to be fully over the line for it to be a legitimate goal.

The rule on square ball is also a very tough one for the officials, especially when it's a from play situation compared to from a dead ball situation. The natural instinct when the ball is in play is for an umpire to concentrate on following the flight of the ball especially in a situation where it looks like a player is shooting for a point. It's one thing to call a square ball accurately from a video or even a still picture but it's a far harder task to do in real time especially when you're not expecting it (like in the case of a shot at the posts dropping short)

I wonder if there would be merit in the rules committee looking at trialing possible changes or alternatives to this especially in play given it seems to be a rule that is missed by officials with a fair degree of regularity. The other option is the VAR route but I really don't think there is all that much in the way of appetite for that. 

Yeah I have always worked on the understanding it's whole ball over whole line

Yes, was always "over all of the line" previously.
The goalline is 4 inches wide. If there's any overhang over even a millimetre of the line, it's not a goal, and I've seen no evidence of clear daylight between the ball and all of the line.

The square ball isn't an open and shut case either.
Was the ball actually in the square when O'Brien made contact with it? He jumps in the air, starting just inside the edge of the square and stretches his arm out. He's 6'3" so has a considerable wingspan. And like the goalline one, all of the ball has to be over all of the line to be considered 'in the square'. To me, while he's in the square, it looks like he makes contact with the ball either outside the square or above the line (thus not considered inside), which means no infringement.

I'm not sure that even if correct that would be no infringement. The rule is that it is square ball.

For an attacking player to enter opponents' small rectangle:
(a) (b) During Play (excluding Set Play), before the final play of the ball into the small rectangle.

So even if you are correct that O'Brien was outside the square the other Kerry player would still on that version have been in the small rectangle before the final play of the ball into the small rectangle.

The three big calls all went Kerrys way. Penalty, square ball and a goal not given when over the line.

And the 3 big & wrong calls v Tyrone all went Kerry's way...show strange

At least one of them was by definition was the correct call