From top George Gibney, Irvin Muchnick
You may recall two previous posts about former Irish swimming coach George Gibney.
One post detailed how Gibney – who was charged with 27 counts of indecency against young swimmers and of carnal knowledge of girls under the age of 15 in April, 1993 – sought and won a High Court judicial review in 1994 that quashed all the charges against him.
The judicial review was secured after a landmark Supreme Court decision, during which Gibney’s senior counsel Patrick Gageby argued that the delay in initiating the prosecution against Gibney infringed his right to a fair trial.
Mr Gageby’s sister Susan Denham was on the bench of the Supreme Court that day.
The second post was a timeline of events concerning Gibney, the allegations made against him and how he eventually went to live in America after the charges against him were dropped.
The timeline explained how American journalist Irvin Muchnick has been attempting to obtain the US Department of Homeland Security’s immigration file on Gibney – in an effort to understand how Gibney was able to get a visa and then a green card to live in the States, given the previous charges against him.
In July 2015, following his FOI request to the US authorities for the file, Mr Muchnick received just four pages of Gibney’s file.
On April 17, 2016, the Sunday Times, reported that further documents released to Mr Muchnick show that Gardaí gave Gibney a certificate of character – issued on January 20, 1992 – to support his application for an American visa.
The certificate given to Mr Muchnick was reported to be partially redacted with the name of the issuing officer and its contents obscured.
According to the Murphy Inquiry – which was set up to look at abuse in swimming in 1998 – a parent from a club other than Trojan Swimming Club, where Gibney coached, was told by an assistant coach of Trojan in November 1991 that the gardai and the ISPCC were informed of the allegations in relation to Gibney.
However, later the ISPCC said it had no record of any such complaint in 1991 or in 1992. And, the Murphy Inquiry states the first record on the Garda file is dated December 15, 1992.
Mr Muchnick is still trying to obtain Gibney’s full immigration file and, last Friday, he appeared before Judge Charles Breyer, a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, about the matter.
Mr Muchnik wants to know who assisted or sponsored Mr Gibney in successfully attaining a Green Card. More than 100 American swimming coaches have been jailed and/or banned for life from the sport in the past few years for offences against boys and girls.
Mr Muchnick reports:
At last Friday’s case management conference for Muchnick v. Department of Homeland Security, in his San Francisco federal courtroom, Judge Charles Breyer stated that he would review in camera 19 disputed documents from George Gibney’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services file, and render a decision. (In camera review, which our side had requested, means the judge will inspect the records privately in his chambers. The assistant U.S. attorney handed over to the court unredacted copies of the documents.) Judge Breyer did not say when he would rule.
More as we get it.
Judge Breyer Brings George Gibney FOIA Dispute Close to Resolution (Irvin Muchnick, Concussion Inc)
Previously: Unreasonable Delay
The Chief Justice, Her Brother And How George Gibney Got Away
Russell Crowe is George Gibney in…
Young children.
ha ha
pedo jokes, really?
lol
Irvin Muchnick looks like a never-nude.
Keep digging Mr Muchnick. You’re doing us a great service.
Hopefully the U.S. authorities are less likely to protect peados and their facilitators..
+100
muck nick – the name is apt
muchnick = much nick
FAIL
You don’t change, do you? Toe the line, submit, obey, never question – that about it, Indah?
You’re extremely boring.
Your reactionary response to everything is as predictable and tedious as any establishment shill.
Joke poster.
Can someone do me up a chart showing the correlation between pedophilia and wearing terrible glasses? Starting to see a pattern here.
Seeing a pattern? Could be your glasses. Your paedo glasses! BURN HIM
Legging it to the US, he should have just gone to Donegal.
I know I shouldn’t have
But I did
“More than 100 American swimming coaches have been jailed and/or banned for life from the sport in the past few years for offences against boys and girls.”
Wow….
I’m genuinely curious why you felt you had to include the first story about Gageby’s legal move to get him off. It has no bearing whatsoever on this piece and smacks of trying to skirt libel laws.
A lawyers duty is to see that his client gets the best representation under the law.. Regardless of who the judge was, he did his job and did it well.
Should we just drive this guys name into the dirt because of the type of clients he defends?
I think it’s the fact that his sister was on the bench that day that’s the issue
And that Gageby pushed for, and succeeded in eliminating evidence over a certain age as inadmissible allowing alleged abusers to go free once they’d been protected for a length of time.
A. You don’t know what you’re talking about..
B. Gageby was doing his job. His job is to defend his clients. That is integrity.
That’s fine.
Broadsheet telling us how Gageby did his job in factual manner is integrity too.
Still doesn’t explain why Denham thought her involvement was ok
I agree. Denham was way out of line.
Broadsheet is not telling us how he did his job in a factual manner. Broadsheet is repeating it and repeating it and is clearly engaged in innuendo.
As explained below Denham’s involvement isn’t exactly a smoking gun.
“Broadsheet is not telling us how he did his job in a factual manner.”
I thought there was plenty of information on how he did his job representing peadophiles.. in particular how he was successful in preventing George Gibney from being prosecuted.
Did you miss that post? It’s linked to above.
“engaged in innuendo”..
Says your man who, when transcripts and links to articles are put up, infers all sorts of intentions and asks, ‘what are ye getting at Broadsheet.. tell me now’?
Transcripts like. Hello.
It’s barely mentioned in the piece above.. There’s one line – “Mr Gageby’s sister Susan Denham was on the bench of the Supreme Court that day” And yet, people like yourself are harping on about. Why’s that, do you think Rotsey?
There’s no innuendo.. a statement of fact was written.
Irv has done some stellar work in the last twenty years. Recently his efforts with the victim’s family to have Jimmy Snuka’s murder investigation reopened in Pennsylvania has resulted in a criminal trial.
Another fine mess .
The Irish media are just waiting in the water wings for this to break.
I see what you did there.
Clearly the author knows exactly nothing about the characters involved. That the now Chief Justice was one of several sitting judges, that the other side would have been fully entitled to request that Denham J. recuse herself if there was any bias or perceived bias, that the Irish legal system is not as corrupt as the US system and that Denham J has in the past and probably will in the future as CJ find against Mr Gageby’s clients is of no concern to this particular journalist because what is important is the story, not the relevant facts.
Oh, and I am talking about the CJ and her brother, not the child molester. Beware of journalists.
From the previous article: ‘The Code of Conduct of the Irish Bar provides that, “Barristers shall not habitually practice in a case in which their parent, spouse or near blood relative is a presiding judge.”’ And did the other side know of the relationship between the two, to object?
There isn’t a barrister in the country who “habitually” practices before the Supreme Court. The fact that there are at least 5 judges, requiring agreement of at least 3 to arrive at a decision, the fact that one of them might potentially be perceived to be bias is (to the minds of most people) sufficient to mitigate the risk of bias. And did the other side know that Mr Gageby is the brother of Denham J? She goes by both the name Denham and Gageby Denham. This is the Irish Legal system we are talking about, one of a handful of Supreme Court judges and two of the best known lawyers in the country. I think they might have had some idea…
“the fact that one of them might potentially be perceived to be bias is (to the minds of most people) sufficient to mitigate the risk of bias.”
Clearly not Swag..
You have a lot more faith in the comments section of Broadsheet and the biased reporting of a journalist trying to sell copy as either an informative venue or as a barometer of ordinary sentiment than most people.
as a barometer of ordinary sentiment than most people.
Do you think you have a good feel for the ordinary sentiment of most people yourself yeah?
What do you think the sentiment of most people would be towards George Gibney and the judicial review that enabled this man to escape justice for the raping of children?
There was a potential perceived bias. Read the comments in BS when this was raised previously.
Denham Could have recused herself without being asked.
Whether the Irish system is less corrupt than the US one is a matter of opinion. There is a considerable lack of scrutiny & transparency around the Irish system imo
Agreed, Cluster.
Or alternatively it could be measured objectively. Take Transparency International’s Judicial Independence measure which gives the US 4.9 out of 7, ranked 36th in the world, as against Ireland’s 6.3 out of 7 or 10th in the world. Given your comment you could probably benefit from reading the important distinction Transparency International makes between “Corruption Perception” and actual corruption. Your suggestion that the level of actual corruption is a matter of “opinion” is wrong.
Have you a link to those ratings?
Here’s what they say about the important distinction you mention –
Perceptions are used because corruption – whether frequency or amount – is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption.
Measuring scandals, investigations or prosecutions, while offering ‘non-perception’ data, reflect less on the prevalence of corruption in a country and more on other factors, such as freedom of the press or the efficiency of the judicial system.
https://www.transparency.org/country/#IRL
The TI commentary on the Corruption Perception index does not invalidate it as a method of measuring corruption generally, however it does caution against the inverse scenario where a few high profile instances of corruption result in a much higher perception of corruption than instances of actual corruption in an environment where, generally speaking, press freedom and judicial efficiency are not limiting factors. Their report on Ireland is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Will try to locate the source but can’t recall where it was.
“There was a potential perceived bias. Read the comments in BS when this was raised previously.”
The comments in BS have stated that the sandy hook shootings did not happen, that the MarRef referendum would not pass and that RTE is Biased in favor of/against every political party in this country.
The comments section in broadsheet is not any sort of moral or factual guru to ne namechecked to back up your point.
Swag, the other side being the Director of Public prosecutions Eamonn Barnes, of X case and Fr Brendan Smyth extradition infamy.
And every other case involving the DPP during his years in charge. He was, after all, the DPP. For 25 years. Barnes would not have appeared himself in these proceedings. I couldn’t locate the judgment to find out the reasoning of the decision, who else appeared or what the division of the court was in making the decision, but the facts as put forward here are in no way sufficient to justify the crude innuendo of the piece.
but the facts as put forward here are in no way sufficient to justify the crude innuendo of the piece
What crude innuendo is that?
If you’re referring to Denham, how is a potential bias or perceived bias a crude innuendo?
Bias wasn’t even mentioned in this thread, yet you seem to know what the innuendo is.. as presumably you’re not an idiot.
Here’s an interesting comment on one of the other threads on this –
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/04/29/the-chief-justice-her-brother-and-how-george-gibney-got-away/#comment-1607429
“As regards the Denham-Gageby family connection, the Chief Justice at the time, who would have been responsible for assigning the judges, bears some responsibility for this mess too. Does Mr Gageby still appear before the Supreme Court when Susan Denham is sitting? It’s not like there aren’t sufficient other judges on the Supreme Court to make up the necessary quorum without her.
The crude innuendo (being “innuendo” as it is not explicitly stated, such being the definition of innuendo) is that the article insinuates that the decision was made solely on the basis of the fact of a family connection between one of the lawyers and one of the judges. The article invites that conclusion by citing it as a relevant fact. It is not a relevant fact if the broader context of the numerical make-up of the court and nature of the decision being taken. If it were a single judge making the decision then I would entirely agree that it should not happen, but it was not one judge sitting alone.
So, having actually found and read the case…
The decision of the Supreme Court made a finding of law as to the standard to be applied in Judicial Review proceedings relating to delay in prosecution and then reverted the decision to the High Court. So while the law was determined by the Supreme Court, the application of the law was determined by another court entirely. This article makes none of that clear.
To put the question before the Supreme Court in a very blunt way: “Is the fact that there was a significant delay on the part of the DPP in the charging of a person with specific offences an arguable ground for seeking judicial review of a decision to prosecute?”
The decisions of the court given by Finlay CJ, Blaney and Denham JJ were all in agreement (it might have been a 3 judge court) and granted the appeal of the refusal of Lavan J in the High Court to grant leave to seek judicial review, the standard being “an prima facie case” on the grounds as set out. That being a very low standard it is of little surprise that the appeal against the decision of Lavan J was granted. So on the law it if very hard to argue against the decision (G v. DPP [1994] 1 I.R. 374). In fact, the substance of the judgment seems to indicate that it was a fairly poor decision of Lavan J that gave rise to the appeal. To do anything other than grant the appeal would have been obtuse.
A judge should never be in a position where actual or perceived bias is in issue. Where there is actual bias, a judge should never determine a case. However where there is perceived bias it is necessary to take relevant steps to remove that perception. Under the circumstances, the fact of it being a divisional court (i.e. not one judge determining the case) should be sufficient. Had Denham J gone the other way with the decision then it would have made no difference as Finlay CJ and Blaney J were in agreement.
It is broadly accepted that it is entirely possible to take steps (either procedurally or in fact) short of recusal that will address perceived bias. [have a look at Hogan’s Administrative Law in Ireland].
Is Denham CJ more likely to find in favour of her brother? I have no idea. Should Denham CJ be in a position where she has the deciding vote? No. Is any of this ideal? I agree it is not. However I would suggest that if Finlay CJ, Blaney, Denham JJ, Gageby (at that time BL and being led by Kevin Haugh SC so Gageby wouldn’t even have addressed the court), Haugh SC and the arrayed mass of SC, BL and solicitors for the DPP are sufficient to fully mitigate against any perception of bias.
Regarding the number of Supreme Court Judges, until the establishment of the Court of Appeal there were not, in fact, enough judges.
Thanks for the definition of innuendo.. that was very kind of you.
.. the article insinuates that the decision was made solely on the basis of the fact of a family connection. The article invites that conclusion by citing it as a relevant fact.
I don’t believe the article invites any such conclusion… that the decision was made solely on the basis of a family connection.
What facts should be omitted to ensure you’re not being invited to make particular conclusions?
You are well aware that there would at least be a perceived bias, and you may well believe that any perceived bias was mitigated by the fact of there being three judges. I’m not so sure.
Under the circumstances, the fact of it being a divisional court (i.e. not one judge determining the case) should be sufficient.
You mention most people would be of this persuasion. What are you basing that on?
From another thread on this here – Irish law is also subject to general rules of fair procedure, including the principle ‘nemo iudex in causa sua’ (no man shall be a judge in his own cause), which provides for the quashing of judicial decisions made in ‘circumstances which would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility … that the tribunal was biased’.
Do you think most fair minded people would be happy to see a man accused of raping children over numerous years not being brought to justice and continue to be a threat to children?
If there’s a possibility that this judicial decision could be quashed, do you not think it would be just to do so and the author would have honourable intentions in that regard?
Also, RE: The decision of the Supreme Court made a finding of law as to the standard to be applied in Judicial Review proceedings relating to delay in prosecution and then reverted the decision to the High Court. So while the law was determined by the Supreme Court, the application of the law was determined by another court entirely. This article makes none of that clear.
Eh, they linked to another post above on this and that was indeed made clear.
God only knows what you were invited to conclude, by that not being made clear to you.
Though you’re bending over backwards to give latitude to an obvious conflict of interest – since there is no way the question can not arise in these circumstances – this rather starkly suggests that Broadsheet are entirely justified in repeatedly highlighting the situation.
“Code of Conduct” – it’s not the law. Get over it. X 2
@ Anne
The meaning of Denning is entirely the opposite to what was being discussed. I guess you knew that but the major opportunity to rant couldn’t be missed?
Here’s another interesting comment too.. in relation to this innuendo that you deduced.
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/04/29/the-chief-justice-her-brother-and-how-george-gibney-got-away/#comment-1617113
“The fact that Susan Denham didn’t see it inappropriate for her to sit on the case where her brother was involved speaks volumes about her real ethical integrity.
I was a counselor and also have two law degrees. As a counselor I had other counselors removed permanently after filing ethical charges against them. Susan Denham ignored a most important principle; that is “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”
As a the proud possessor of “two law degrees” the person who posted that comment probably should have looked at the story in a bit more detail. That they call themselves “counselor” leads me to think that they don’t have much to say about the Irish legal system and know little or nothing about the nature of the proceedings in question. Also, I will never find myself in a position of relying upon what other people post on the internet as an argument in favour of my position. A maxim to live by…
“I don’t believe the article invites any such conclusion… ”
That was the main motivation and thrust for writing the article. If it were not, then would the article have been written?
No. #dealwithit
@ Swag
Thanks for the erudition and insight.
@ Anne
I perceive your frustration albeit recall the maxim that hard cases make bad law. Swag sets out the principles by which Irish law cases are generally decided, notwithstanding that I deplore also the fact that the sitting judge could not recuse herself. Innuendo the article may well be albeit it’s not enough for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done :)
Regarding the number of Supreme Court Judges, until the establishment of the Court of Appeal there were not, in fact, enough judges.
That’s not true. At the time of the G decision there were more members of the Supreme Court than were required for that decision. Accordingly it would have been possible to put another member of the Supreme Court on the court for that case. That should have been done. Failure to do so also reflects on the Chief Justice of the time who would presumably have selected the judges for that court.
That’s not true. At the time of the G decision there were more members of the Supreme Court than were required for that decision. Accordingly it would have been possible to put another member of the Supreme Court on the court for that case. That should have been done. Failure to do so also reflects on the Chief Justice of the time who would presumably have selected the judges for that court.
Oh stop with these crude innuendos… we’re ranked 10th in the world in terms of Judicial Independence, don’t cha know.
I perceive your frustration albeit recall the maxim that hard cases make bad law
Very kind of you also, to perceive my frustration.
Regarding that cliché. It’s absolute nonsense.
Lord Denning had the follow to say on it:
It should be deleted from our vocabulary. It comes to this: “Unjust decisions make good law”: whereas they do nothing of the kind. Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice, then equity should be called in to remedy it.
CTRL C, CTRL V Wikipedia..
Hard cases do not make bad law. They demand good law.
Denning means the opposite to what you say Anne
“Denning means the opposite to what you say Anne”
How is it the opposite?
If he sexually assaulted my boy he would know all about cat o nine tails and he wouldnt be sitting business class with a Chief Superintendents recommendation letter in his arse pocket on us flight. Fact.
Mecca is *THAT* way.
Lame tittle-tattle about Denham. Libellous too.
Rubbish.
A quick google search discloses that Patrick Gageby has appeared before a Supreme Court comprising his sister Susan Denham on at least 13 occasions since her appointment to the Supreme Court.
Here are the citations:
O’Leary v A-G [1995] 1 IR 254
Larkin v O’Dea [1995] 2 IR 485
Incorporated Law Society v Carroll [1995] 3 IR 145
DPP v PG [1996] 1 IR 281
DPP v McDonagh [1996] 1 IR 565
DPP v McGinley 1998 WJSC-SC 5791,
POC v DPP [2000] 3 IR 87
DPP v Edgeworth [2001] 2 IR 131
FJ Mc K v AF [2002] 1 IR 242
DPP v O’Brien [2005] 2 IR 206
Gilligan v Special Criminal Court [2006] 2 IR 390
Phipps v Judge Hogan [2007] IESC 1
Carmody v Minister for Justice [2010] 1 IR 638
I feel the above amounts to ‘habitually practising’.
And these are only occasions when the case is reported in the Irish Reports or he is name checked by the judge in the judgment (there may be other occasions when he appeared where there is no record online).
This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs (as two commenters supportive of Denham above admit) and Broadsheet is entitled to highlight it.
It appears that it came to attention in the context of researching the Gibney case and they are entitled to raise it in this context without smears of ‘innuendo’
The thrust of the article (as shown by the quotation from Denham J used) is abundantly clear.
Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.
It’s not ‘tittle-tattle’ – appearing before your sister regularly – or arguably at all – is not appropriate for the highest court in the land – an unappealable court. It damages public confidence in the judiciary.
Anyone who responds to a claim of apparent bias on the part of the judiciary with ‘libel’ and ‘lame tittle-tattle’ doesn’t understand the nature of the administration of justice in a democracy and the concept of apparent bias.
+1
“A quick google search discloses that Patrick Gageby has appeared before a Supreme Court comprising his sister Susan Denham on at least 13 occasions since her appointment to the Supreme Court.”
‘The Code of Conduct of the Irish Bar provides that, “Barristers shall not habitually practice in a case in which their parent, spouse or near blood relative is a presiding judge.” ‘
Swag writes: “There isn’t a barrister in the country who “habitually” practices before the Supreme Court.”
Swag also writes: “You have a lot more faith in the comments section of Broadsheet”
Which comments should we put faith in now? Got the definition of ‘habitual’ Swag? You seem like a man who’s in possession of a dictionary.
“Code of Conduct” – it’s not the law. Get over it.
“Code of Conduct” – it’s not the law. Get over it.
Insightful as ever.
Here –
https://youtu.be/MXzxyHp2rfU?t=367
Susan Denham. Min 6:25 approx.
So Ethics can be something of an illiusive concept. It’s connected to the individual and indeed the word ethics comes from the Greek word ‘Ethos’, which means character.
A helpful definition that I was looking up comes from a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the U.S.A. who said “ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”
That link I posted doesn’t display the video for me..
Here –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXzxyHp2rfU
Min 6 approx.