Rory Gallagher

[David McKeown]

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour. We also know that the authorities in the North investigated the case and issued a no prosecution decision, that was affirmed on review.

We also know complaints were made to the Gardai. I'm not sure what happened those.

The issue with the 'inventor of sell by dates' was that he was protected by a corrupt establishment until the people turned on him.

[Saffron_sam20]

Did he ever deny it?

His denial of her accusations waa missing from every comment he made. That tells you everything unless of course you just don't want to listen

No it doesn't, if he got legal advice they would have told him to not get drawn on it, it's pretty common

Nope. I have never ever heard of legal advice that tells the accused to make a lengthly statement about serious accusations against you but under no circumstances should you deny the accusations. If you can find me an example of such advice to anyone else I'd love to see it. Unfortunately for RG, unlike other poor victims of domestic violence, his had witnesses.

Strange I thought the advice would likely have been not to comment at all on the allegations even to refute them.

That's what I'd have thought and a few friends in the legal profession told me the same. But sure what would you or them know. People on social media all know better

[Duine Inteacht Eile]

I think Itchy's point is that Rory Gallagher did issue a public statement on the matter.

[Keyser soze]

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour. We also know that the authorities in the North investigated the case and issued a no prosecution decision, that was affirmed on review.

We also know complaints were made to the Gardai. I'm not sure what happened those.

The issue with the 'inventor of sell by dates' was that he was protected by a corrupt establishment until the people turned on him.

As a law professional I am sure you are more aware than almost anyone else on here of the difficulty in successfully prosecuting domestic violence crimes.

Disappointed that you are taking this stance.

[tonto1888]

This is a difficult one for me RG was never even prosecuted for this let alone convicted. Moreover has custody of his children following family proceedings which would have had to make findings of fact based on the allegations.

I worry that as a society we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence.

If someone wants to appoint him then they should do their own investigation, reach their own conclusions and if satisfied then appoint away.

I'm not sure that not doing it because of public opinion is really any better than doing it.

Does he have custody because she has, from what I have read, an alcohol issue?

[David McKeown]

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour. We also know that the authorities in the North investigated the case and issued a no prosecution decision, that was affirmed on review.

We also know complaints were made to the Gardai. I'm not sure what happened those.

The issue with the 'inventor of sell by dates' was that he was protected by a corrupt establishment until the people turned on him.

As a law professional I am sure you are more aware than almost anyone else on here of the difficulty in successfully prosecuting domestic violence crimes.

Disappointed that you are taking this stance.

As a legal professional I know the following. Firstly there is a difficulty in securing any form of conviction because of the necessary standard of proof that applies in criminal cases. That said I also know that we have a conservative and risk adverse prosecution service who will direct prosecution in a high number of such cases. Consequently when the  prosecution even after review choose not to prosecute that is significant. I can't gainsay their reasons for doing so but I imagine they have greater knowledge than what is in the public forum.

Similarly as a legal professional I know that family courts aren't burdened by the same burden of proof. They take even suggestions of domestic violence very seriously and conducted extensive investigations involving many experts including lawyers for the children and the local health care trust. Their job isn't to establish which parent would it be better for kids to live with. Their job is to first of all establish would it be safe to allow either parent care of the children. If they have any suspicions following these involved and detailed investigations they won't take a risk. So again that is significant.

That coupled with the presumption in favour of innocence is where my stance comes from. However your concern for my stance is touching.

[Mike Tyson]

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour. We also know that the authorities in the North investigated the case and issued a no prosecution decision, that was affirmed on review.

We also know complaints were made to the Gardai. I'm not sure what happened those.

The issue with the 'inventor of sell by dates' was that he was protected by a corrupt establishment until the people turned on him.

As a law professional I am sure you are more aware than almost anyone else on here of the difficulty in successfully prosecuting domestic violence crimes.

Disappointed that you are taking this stance.

As a legal professional I know the following. Firstly there is a difficulty in securing any form of conviction because of the necessary standard of proof that applies in criminal cases. That said I also know that we have a conservative and risk adverse prosecution service who will direct prosecution in a high number of such cases. Consequently when the  prosecution even after review choose not to prosecute that is significant. I can't gainsay their reasons for doing so but I imagine they have greater knowledge than what is in the public forum.

Similarly as a legal professional I know that family courts aren't burdened by the same burden of proof. They take even suggestions of domestic violence very seriously and conducted extensive investigations involving many experts including lawyers for the children and the local health care trust. Their job isn't to establish which parent would it be better for kids to live with. Their job is to first of all establish would it be safe to allow either parent care of the children. If they have any suspicions following these involved and detailed investigations they won't take a risk. So again that is significant.

That coupled with the presumption in favour of innocence is where my stance comes from. However your concern for my stance is touching.

Usually agree with majority of your posts David but having had a family member involved in a DV case, which is still ongoing, in which the children were taken into care by the Trust, can only completely disagree with you in this instance.

In the letter informing said family member of the decision not to prosecute, they were told initially there was insufficient evidence. On the advice of their solicitor they appealed and the subsequent letter effectively said it is a he said/she said matter and they won't be pursuing a prosecution.

These extensive investigations have been non existent and there have certainly not been many experts involved. A single social worker and a guardian appointed by the court are the only people who have been involved with the children.

There have been many suggestions (on both sides I will add) that the children shouldn't be returned to either parent yet the Trust appear ignorant to such and inconsistent at best, incompetent at worst. They also appear to make complete illogical decisions and u-turns for no reason. For example, an application was made to the court by the Trust to reduce parental contact of one parent mentioning they didn't demonstrate the ability to understand the requirements needed to be a parent. The application was to reduce contact to one hour supervised a week. This was rejected by the court who had the opinion current contact (two supervised visits of two hours) should remain. The very next day the trust informed us the same parent would now be getting unsupervised contact for three hours twice a week.

Any dealings I have had with the trust and their understaffed employees, have been an eye opener to the sheer incompetence and/or inability of the Trust at times. The point I am getting is that the "system" so to speak, is far from this infallible, bastion of truth you seem to suggest. Our experience has been the complete opposite.

Lies and misleading statements have regularly been believed by the Trust and not followed up or fact checked.

This is not a suggestion that RG is guilty, more to say in our experience, not being prosecuted and having custody of the kids means sweet f**k all and the Trust can easily be manipulated by someone with a bit of cunning or brains.

In this case, the abuser sought and was granted a temporary ex-parte Non-molestation and Occupation order which upon review and with evidence was immediately scrapped. Maybe you'll explain it better than I can, but my understanding is an ex-parte Non-molestation is brought without representation from the other party and is essentially a restraining order, which is enforceable even if the party whom the order is against isn't aware the other party is in the vicinity. ie they could be walking down the street and not even know the other party is in the same town and yet be arrested for breaching.

[David McKeown]

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour. We also know that the authorities in the North investigated the case and issued a no prosecution decision, that was affirmed on review.

We also know complaints were made to the Gardai. I'm not sure what happened those.

The issue with the 'inventor of sell by dates' was that he was protected by a corrupt establishment until the people turned on him.

As a law professional I am sure you are more aware than almost anyone else on here of the difficulty in successfully prosecuting domestic violence crimes.

Disappointed that you are taking this stance.

As a legal professional I know the following. Firstly there is a difficulty in securing any form of conviction because of the necessary standard of proof that applies in criminal cases. That said I also know that we have a conservative and risk adverse prosecution service who will direct prosecution in a high number of such cases. Consequently when the  prosecution even after review choose not to prosecute that is significant. I can't gainsay their reasons for doing so but I imagine they have greater knowledge than what is in the public forum.

Similarly as a legal professional I know that family courts aren't burdened by the same burden of proof. They take even suggestions of domestic violence very seriously and conducted extensive investigations involving many experts including lawyers for the children and the local health care trust. Their job isn't to establish which parent would it be better for kids to live with. Their job is to first of all establish would it be safe to allow either parent care of the children. If they have any suspicions following these involved and detailed investigations they won't take a risk. So again that is significant.

That coupled with the presumption in favour of innocence is where my stance comes from. However your concern for my stance is touching.

Usually agree with majority of your posts David but having had a family member involved in a DV case, which is still ongoing, in which the children were taken into care by the Trust, can only completely disagree with you in this instance.

In the letter informing said family member of the decision not to prosecute, they were told initially there was insufficient evidence. On the advice of their solicitor they appealed and the subsequent letter effectively said it is a he said/she said matter and they won't be pursuing a prosecution.

These extensive investigations have been non existent and there have certainly not been many experts involved. A single social worker and a guardian appointed by the court are the only people who have been involved with the children.

There have been many suggestions (on both sides I will add) that the children shouldn't be returned to either parent yet the Trust appear ignorant to such and inconsistent at best, incompetent at worst. They also appear to make complete illogical decisions and u-turns for no reason. For example, an application was made to the court by the Trust to reduce parental contact of one parent mentioning they didn't demonstrate the ability to understand the requirements needed to be a parent. The application was to reduce contact to one hour supervised a week. This was rejected by the court who had the opinion current contact (two supervised visits of two hours) should remain. The very next day the trust informed us the same parent would now be getting unsupervised contact for three hours twice a week.

Any dealings I have had with the trust and their understaffed employees, have been an eye opener to the sheer incompetence and/or inability of the Trust at times. The point I am getting is that the "system" so to speak, is far from this infallible, bastion of truth you seem to suggest. Our experience has been the complete opposite.

Lies and misleading statements have regularly been believed by the Trust and not followed up or fact checked.

This is not a suggestion that RG is guilty, more to say in our experience, not being prosecuted and having custody of the kids means sweet f**k all and the Trust can easily be manipulated by someone with a bit of cunning or brains.

In this case, the abuser sought and was granted a temporary ex-parte Non-molestation and Occupation order which upon review and with evidence was immediately scrapped. Maybe you'll explain it better than I can, but my understanding is an ex-parte Non-molestation is brought without representation from the other party and is essentially a restraining order, which is enforceable even if the party whom the order is against isn't aware the other party is in the vicinity. ie they could be walking down the street and not even know the other party is in the same town and yet be arrested for breaching.

Firstly I am sorry for your experience.

I'm not holding the Trust or the Family Courts as some infallible system. I'm saying it would be one in a number of different factors which when all weighed together and balanced against things like (it's hard to secure convictions) that my view would be that it's a difficult position for Derry. Stuck between RG's entitlement to be treated as innocent against the backlash from a public who may not be fully informed or willing to afford a presumption of innocence. In those circumstances I'd be leaning towards a persons presumption of innocence.

On the issue of non mols they are criminal orders. They can be obtained without the respondent being made aware. It's a controversial topic in law here. They can't be enforced until served and they don't prevent accidental contact or even contact at all. They are designed to prevent molestation

[Mike Tyson]

That's fair. I read your comments as more or less that in family issues etc the courts and Trust wouldn't award custody unless rigours check etc. apologies if picked you up wrong.

As I said, I'm more making the point that custody of the kids can be a misleading bias in cases as our experience of Trust is they are understaffed and some workers incompetent. Which can easily lead to manipulation and distortion. But that's just my experience. Other Trusts I know operate more efficiently and are more competent.

Never even knew non-mols existed until family member was served. Couldn't believe the other party didn't have to be present or made aware of the process. Our barrister told us it would have covered accidental contact but I thought that was strange so will take your word on it.

[David McKeown]

That's fair. I read your comments as more or less that in family issues etc the courts and Trust wouldn't award custody unless rigours check etc. apologies if picked you up wrong.

As I said, I'm more making the point that custody of the kids can be a misleading bias in cases as our experience of Trust is they are understaffed and some workers incompetent. Which can easily lead to manipulation and distortion. But that's just my experience. Other Trusts I know operate more efficiently and are more competent.

Never even knew non-mols existed until family member was served. Couldn't believe the other party didn't have to be present or made aware of the process. Our barrister told us it would have covered accidental contact but I thought that was strange so will take your word on it.

It wouldn't be unusual for us to advise that out of abundance of caution.

[Itchy]

This is a difficult one for me RG was never even prosecuted for this let alone convicted. Moreover has custody of his children following family proceedings which would have had to make findings of fact based on the allegations.

I worry that as a society we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence.

If someone wants to appoint him then they should do their own investigation, reach their own conclusions and if satisfied then appoint away.

I'm not sure that not doing it because of public opinion is really any better than doing it.

Does he have custody because she has, from what I have read, an alcohol issue?

Yes she is a vulnerable person and probably would struggle to mind her children. Some (not you) seem to think that gives a sort of justification to the violence done against her.

[High Fielder]

This is an extremely difficult and sensitive set of circumstances. On the one hand, RG was never convicted of a crime (assuming through lack of evidence) and also has custody of his children. To the outsider looking in, that would suggest that he has been wrongly accused. On the other hand, there seems to be this local knowledge that suggests that RG did everything that he is accused of, and everybody bar the Police know about it. As David pointed out above, that's not how the Law works, but at this moment in time, and possibly forever more, RG will not be able to outrun these rumours. For that reason, Derry would be making a big mistake by taking him back

[David McKeown]

This is an extremely difficult and sensitive set of circumstances. On the one hand, RG was never convicted of a crime (assuming through lack of evidence) and also has custody of his children. To the outsider looking in, that would suggest that he has been wrongly accused. On the other hand, there seems to be this local knowledge that suggests that RG did everything that he is accused of, and everybody bar the Police know about it. As David pointed out above, that's not how the Law works, but at this moment in time, and possibly forever more, RG will not be able to outrun these rumours. For that reason, Derry would be making a big mistake by taking him back

Agree it's a very difficult situation and my view is probably more grounded in idealism than realism (which I accept) also I'm not local so am completely basing this on what has been reported. My issue though and it's not specific to the RG situation is that when you have a scenario where allegations have been made, investigated, reviewed and a no prosecution decision has been made (which in my experience are rare) and a family case has arrived at a conclusion like it has then preventing someone from moving on with their life, particularly if a potential employer does due diligence is a slap in the face of the presumption of innocence. Therefore public opinion sometimes has to take a back seat.

All that said. No investigation or court process or due diligence is infallible. So it's a difficult balancing exercise.

[Itchy]

This is an extremely difficult and sensitive set of circumstances. On the one hand, RG was never convicted of a crime (assuming through lack of evidence) and also has custody of his children. To the outsider looking in, that would suggest that he has been wrongly accused. On the other hand, there seems to be this local knowledge that suggests that RG did everything that he is accused of, and everybody bar the Police know about it. As David pointed out above, that's not how the Law works, but at this moment in time, and possibly forever more, RG will not be able to outrun these rumours. For that reason, Derry would be making a big mistake by taking him back

Agree it's a very difficult situation and my view is probably more grounded in idealism than realism (which I accept) also I'm not local so am completely basing this on what has been reported. My issue though and it's not specific to the RG situation is that when you have a scenario where allegations have been made, investigated, reviewed and a no prosecution decision has been made (which in my experience are rare) and a family case has arrived at a conclusion like it has then preventing someone from moving on with their life, particularly if a potential employer does due diligence is a slap in the face of the presumption of innocence. Therefore public opinion sometimes has to take a back seat.

All that said. No investigation or court process or due diligence is infallible. So it's a difficult balancing exercise.

Imagine a scenario where a coach in your club was accused of being a paedophile. Witnesses had made some statements etc. However there was not enough evidence to get a prosecution. Would you be ok with that coach returning to coach in your club? I doubt it. Not unless those accusations were proven to be malicious and false. There's a bit of common sense required in the example above and the same with RG. Dogs on the street know what he was at and Derry GAA know too. Appointing him as he was convicted of no crime is pathetic snf insulting to women. But seems to be no moral leadership in Derry from what I can see.

[quit yo jibbajabba]

I'll say as a Derry man I have huge reservations on him coming back but just to change the subject slightly, are Fermanagh and Donegal Gaa not getting off a bit light on this if it was common knowledge. People queuing up to get digs in at Derry