Re: Will the Dail career of Mick Wallace be truncated?
< Mod CF>
Judge you spoke a bit about juries. Some courts operate without juries, such as the district court, where the judge decides everything, but in a jury trial in the circuit court, it is the jury who must decide guilt or innocence. In a criminal case the defendant has the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. To what degree is it injurious to that right if the Judge were to repeatedly refer to the defendant as criminal before the jury had begun its deliberations? And , seeing as one cannot – no matter how much one believes it – call a judge biased, what remedies exist for this situation?.
That behaviour is improper and it’s inconceivable that any judge should do it. The accused persons prior convictions should not be raised.
I’m taking about calling them criminal in relation to the charge before the court.
Oh, no that’s inconceivable. If there was a conviction, the court of criminal appeal would eat that judge alive.
Well then, I suppose you were lucky that the case ended in a hung jury because I’ve seen you do that in Kilrush Circuit Court.
I doubt that very much.
Yes, you called the defendant a criminal three times before the jury had begun their deliberations. It’s in the transcript if you care to check it.
I wouldn’t - I don’t recall that.
You did it three times. I distinctly recall senior counsel jumping to his feet in agitated protest each time you did it.
It was the DPP v Mary Kelly.
I believe that case is now under appeal.
Yes, the third trial ended in conviction, but the first trial, where you made those remarks ended in a hung jury. Check the transcripts if you like to read them.
Last edited by C. Flower; 25-07-2012 at 10:15 PM.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”