The DUP thread

[David McKeown]

If getting a doctor to say you are too ill to stand trial is or isn't a valid position to take. It shouldn't prevent your co-accused trial going ahead.

Yes it should. Otherwise victims would have to relive the trauma twice in court.

[David McKeown]

Manipulation of the legal system is as old as the courts.

Avoiding a trial by using whatever excuses are available, won't do you any favours with the jury when the trial goes ahead.

The jury shouldn't know. Probably hard to avoid in a high profile case like this but the jury will be warned.

[Windmill abu]

If getting a doctor to say you are too ill to stand trial is or isn't a valid position to take. It shouldn't prevent your co-accused trial going ahead.

Yes it should. Otherwise victims would have to relive the trauma twice in court.

If the victim has already given evidence in court and has been cross examined by a defence barrister. Couldn't that testimony be used in the other associated trial?

[David McKeown]

If getting a doctor to say you are too ill to stand trial is or isn't a valid position to take. It shouldn't prevent your co-accused trial going ahead.

Yes it should. Otherwise victims would have to relive the trauma twice in court.

If the victim has already given evidence in court and has been cross examined by a defence barrister. Couldn't that testimony be used in the other associated trial?

No

[Brendan]

What's the bets Gordan Lyons will choose to attend the Antrim Armagh match hoping it won't go ahead

[RedHand88]

What's the bets Gordan Lyons will choose to attend the Antrim Armagh match hoping it won't go ahead

Lol 4d chess right there.

[Tony Baloney]

What's the bets Gordan Lyons will choose to attend the Antrim Armagh match hoping it won't go ahead

As a proud Antrim man I'd have no doubt that's his pick!

[Aaron Boone]

Gordon, Emma & Co getting good press and exposure this week in Washington. Rarely happens like that for them.

Nationalist politicians missing in action. They did give their reasons.

[RadioGAAGAA]

If getting a doctor to say you are too ill to stand trial is or isn't a valid position to take. It shouldn't prevent your co-accused trial going ahead.

Yes it should. Otherwise victims would have to relive the trauma twice in court.

I take it there is protections in place to ensure at some point the trial will go ahead?

Can the victims request it so?


Otherwise it seems a very easy out.

[Windmill abu]

If getting a doctor to say you are too ill to stand trial is or isn't a valid position to take. It shouldn't prevent your co-accused trial going ahead.

Yes it should. Otherwise victims would have to relive the trauma twice in court.

I take it there is protections in place to ensure at some point the trial will go ahead?

Can the victims request it so?


Otherwise it seems a very easy out.

As I have already said it is a means to prevent a trial proceeding. The best way to prevent this is to revoke all bail and then we will see if the illness is genuine or a delaying tactic.

[David McKeown]

If getting a doctor to say you are too ill to stand trial is or isn't a valid position to take. It shouldn't prevent your co-accused trial going ahead.

Yes it should. Otherwise victims would have to relive the trauma twice in court.

I take it there is protections in place to ensure at some point the trial will go ahead?

Can the victims request it so?


Otherwise it seems a very easy out.

Generally speaking there has to be good reason for a trial not to go ahead. It's up to Judges to manage the competing interests in that regard and there's plenty of things can be done but it's also hard to look behind a verified medical issue and I don't really think it should be looked behind.

Ultimately trials will run unless defendants die. It's very very difficult to delay trials indefinitely.

[David McKeown]

If getting a doctor to say you are too ill to stand trial is or isn't a valid position to take. It shouldn't prevent your co-accused trial going ahead.

Yes it should. Otherwise victims would have to relive the trauma twice in court.

I take it there is protections in place to ensure at some point the trial will go ahead?

Can the victims request it so?


Otherwise it seems a very easy out.

As I have already said it is a means to prevent a trial proceeding. The best way to prevent this is to revoke all bail and then we will see if the illness is genuine or a delaying tactic.

That most certainly is not the best way to do it.

[BigGreenField]

Dup losing its rag over a rounding error in the Grand Central station budget would drive you to distraction and make you think Jim Allister has a point on mandatory coalition. They have one job (from their perspective) which is to make NI a vaguely welcoming place to live and that would be enough to hold any lid on momentum for a border poll and they just can't do it! Jesus wept.

[Wildweasel74]

Is this sickness issue not out of Harvey Weinstein playbook? Surely past history of sickness needs to come into play?

[David McKeown]

Is this sickness issue not out of Harvey Weinstein playbook? Surely past history of sickness needs to come into play?

It's very hard to look behind a medical letter from a doctor stating someone is unable to stand trial. If the issue was to continue the Court would examine in greater detail the nature of the issue and would make a decision on how to proceed balancing the triangulation of interests of the public, the prosecution and the defence.