0000bbae-531

irvin

From top: George Gibney and journalist Irvin Muchnick

You may recall how, on December 6 last, the US District Court Judge Charles Breyer issued an order compelling the US government to release former Irish swimming coach George Gibney’s immigration and visa file to US journalist Irvin Muchnick.

The US government was given a 60-day window in which to either comply or appeal the ruling.

Today is day 42 of that window.

Gibney was charged with 27 counts of indecency against young swimmers and of carnal knowledge of girls under the age of 15 in April, 1993 – but sought and won a High Court judicial review in 1994 which quashed all the charges against him.

The judicial review was secured following a controversial landmark Supreme Court decision – during which Gibney’s counsel Patrick Gageby argued that the delay in initiating the prosecution against Gibney infringed his right to a fair trial.

After this, Gibney left Ireland for Edinburgh, Scotland and then Florida.

Previously: No Hiding Place

The Chief Justice, Her Brother And How George Gibney Got Away

16 thoughts on “Day 42

  1. Ben Redmond

    Due Process is sacrosanct in law. Sometimes serious cases don’t come to trial as a result of failure in due process. It is sad, along with other frustrating aspects of the legal system, but freedom under law is preferable to tyranny without law.

    1. Topsy

      Ben, that’s some tripe. Familiarise yourself with the facts before you put your foot in your mouth.

      1. Audi Alteram Partem

        Ben, sometimes serious cases don’t come to trial as a result of failure in due process too…

  2. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    Ooohh…. Circle Jerks and their version of ”Golden Circle”…
    Where to begin?

    Due Process is sacrosanct in law, as Ben said.
    – Not necessarily always right, but rightfully necessary all the same

  3. Kenny Plank

    Face it – this is BS stirring the brown stuff in the hope to get the names of the Gardai who gave him a reference and to slur the judiciary. BS has no concern for the victims of abuse here at all. Only click bait.

    1. Audi Alteram Partem

      Really? What basis have you for saying that apart from wishful thinking?

      Any good judge would accept that their decisions and those of their colleagues – and the procedure by which they arrive at them – must be open to question and discussion by the public, the media and on the internet. It’s part of the public administration of justice. Obviously the discussion should be a fair discussion but I see absolutely nothing in Broadsheet’s coverage which is unfair.

      And why shouldn’t the names of the Gardai who gave Gibney a reference be publicised? Is it appropriate for Gardai to give a reference to a member of the public who has been charged with sexual offences against children but has had the charges against him struck out for delay? At the very least that Garda should have obtained clearance from superiors before giving a reference. Come to think of it, what is the procedure in relation to Garda references generally? This question is definitely one which should be pursued.

Comments are closed.