Yearly Archives: 2017

This afternoon.

North Earl Street, Dublin 1

Newcastle United manager Rafa Benitez and five of his star players launch the team’s third kit from Puma at the new Sports Direct megastore.

Three replica kits.

Fight!

Above from left: Ciaran Clark,  Isaac Hayden, Dwight Gayle, Rafa Benitez,  Jamaal Lascelles and  Jonjo Shelvey. Top: Toon fan Georgie Humphreys with his father Owen.

Leon Farrell/Photocall Ireland

RedPILL

A new show  – opening tonight – about love, revenge and trolls.

Fight!

Liam Hallahan writes:

I’ve got a new one man show in Theatre Upstairs [11 Eden Quay, Dublin 1]  for the next couple of weeks. The show’s called REDPILL It explores internet misogyny and what makes a troll! We open tonight  and we’re running till the 29th….

REDPILL tickets here

From top: Templemore College; the Public Accounts Committee this afternoon, from left (front row(  Alan Kelly (Lab) Deputy Chair, Sean Fleming (FF), Chairman. Back row, from left: Shane Cassells (FF), Catherine Murphy (SD), David Cullinane (SF), Bobby Alward (FF), Mary Lou McDonald (SF), Catherine Connolly (Ind) and Peter Burke (FG); Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan

This afternoon.

The Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee’s report into the Garda Training College at Templemore was published this afternoon.

The PAC report finds  Garda management failed to rectify financial situation at the Garda training college :despite numerous opportunities to do so”.

The report says it was “unacceptable” that the C&AG was not informed about financial issues there until ten months after the Garda Commissioner was told about

…and the assertion made by Nóirín O’Sullivan to the Comptroller and Auditor General on 31 July 2015 that she was disclosing all relevant information was “not accurate”

…The PAC says there is a notable absence of common purpose between members of senior management in the force.

The PAC concludes that delays in getting the Department of Justice to sit on a steering group examining the finances at Templemore “does not support the Garda Commissioner’s view that she took decisive action.”

Report criticises O’Sullivan over ‘unacceptable’ Templemore delays (RTÉ)

Rollingnews

Meanwhile…

There you go now.

From top: Garda whistleblower Sergeant Maurice McCabe with his wife Lorraine; Journalist Paul Williams (centre) arriving at the Disclosures Tribunal this morning

This morning.

At the Disclosures Tribunal in Dublin Castle.

Following on from the evidence that Ms D gave yesterday about how she had given an interview – part of which was videoed – to journalist and broadcaster Paul Williams in March 2014.

And how this interview led to a series of articles written by Mr Williams in the Irish Independent in April and May 2014.

The series of articles pertained to Ms D’s 2006 allegations but did not identify Sgt Mcabe.

At the beginning of his evidence, Mr Williams said he wasn’t aware of the rape allegation that was wrongly attributed to Sgt McCabe until February of this year.

He said he read it in the media and he didn’t see RTE’s Prime Time – which outlined the sequence of events  in February 2017 after the matter was raised in the Dáil – as he was out of the country at the time.

The tribunal heard that after Mr Williams’ interview with Ms D he was in telephone contact with the then head of the Garda Press Office Supt Dave Taylor.

Mr Williams told the tribunal that he asked Supt Taylor several questions, including:

Did this investigation take place?

Who was involved?

What was the decision of the DPP?

Was there an arrest?

Can you confirm if it was Inspector Noel Cunningham who was involved?

Was the allegation placed on PULSE?

Mr Williams explained that the question referring to Insp Cunningham was “one of the problems Ms D had”.

Mr Williams told the tribunal that Supt Taylor confirmed to him that an allegation had been made against Sgt McCabe seven years previously, an investigation had taken place and that the DPP said there was no case to answer.

Michael McDowell, SC, for Sgt McCabe, asked Mr Williams: “Did he come back to you and say the allegations didn’t constitute a sexual assault and indeed an assault at all?”

Mr Williams said: “No.”

The tribunal was then referred to a letter sent by Liz Howlin in the DPP’s office to Rory Hayden, the State Solicitor for Cavan.

The tribunal heard the letter stated:

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dates 1st March 2007 together with copy Grda investigation file.

I agree with you and the Guards, that the evidence does no warrant a prosecution There was no admission. The incident as described by the injured party is vague. It appears that it was only when she was eleven/twelve that she decided that whatever occurred was sexual in nature.

Even if there wasn’t a doubt over her credibility, the incident that she describes does not constitute a sexual assault or indeed an assault.

Further, the account given to her cousin [redacted] differs in a a number of respects to that given to her parents and the Guards.

There is no basis for a prosecution.

Yours faithfully.

Asked if he had seen this letter would it have had an affect on him, Mr Williams told the tribunal:

“It would have given a different view.”

Just before the tribunal broke for lunch.

Judge Peter Charleton – who is overseeing the proceedings – asked the legal representatives to clarify with Supt Taylor the claims made by Mr Williams.

Specifically:

1) How many calls Paul Williams and Supt Taylor shared and when?

2) What did Supt Taylor actually say to Mr Williams?

3) Why did he say what he said to Mr Williams?

After lunch, Mr Williams returned to give evidence.

And, in response to Judge Charleton’s questions, Supt Taylor’s legal representative John Ferry BL said:

“It is our instructions that, to the best of our client’s recollection, there was only one phone call, which occurred on the Saturday Mr Williams attended at Ms D’s house.”

“Mr Williams telephoned our client and told him that he was at Ms D’s house and had interviewed her, that Maurice McCabe had destroyed this person and that he was going to write an article that was going to be very damaging to Maurice McCabe.

On the claim that he only made one phone call to Supt Tyalor on the matter, Mr Williams said:

“That’s not true.”

On the claim that he told Supt Taylor he had interview Ms D, that Sgt McCabe destroyed that person and that he was going to write a damaging article, Mr Williams said:

“That’s completely untrue.”

Judge Charleton intervened and asked Mr Williams if there had been any discussion at all about Sgt McCabe destroying anybody’s lives? Mr Williams said:

“No, there was not, chairman.”

Asked if there was anything in that ballpark, Mr Williams replied:

“No.”

Mr Ferry also told the tribunal that, according to Supt Taylor, the nature of the call was that Mr Williams was informing him of what happened and that Mr Williams did not ask Supt Taylor to confirm anything specific or confirm or deny any facts.

Mr Williams said that that was “totally untrue”.

Judge Charleton then asked Supt Taylor’s legal counsel if the instructions from Supt Taylor were that he didn’t say anything to Mr Williams?

Mr Ferry said:

Well, that Superintendent Taylor will say that he took note of what you had told him and that he passed on to his superior, who was then-Commissioner Martin Callinan, and also Deputy Commissioner O’Sullivan, by way of text message.

He added:

“The instructions are that he [Paul Williams] was providing information and that information was relayed on to a superior.”

Mr Williams said he did not call Supt Williams on the same day that he met Ms D and that he had regular conversations with him after he started to make inquiries. He added:

“He suggests there that I rang him up and made a declaration or a statement to him that Maurice McCabe allegedly destroyed somebody’s life. I don’t see any logic in saying that to anybody, especially a press officer. I rang him to clarify details with him, and that’s it.”

Mr Ferry also said that Supt Taylor maintains he received no further calls from Mr Williams on the matter before an article was published on April 2 or 3 [sic].

Readers will note Mr Williams’s first article on Ms D was published on April 12, 2014.

Mr Williams said: “That’s not true, chairman.”

The tribunal continues.

Earlier: Tearing The Garda Family Apart

Meanwhile…

This morning.

Eamon Dunphy (top) and Vincent Browne (above) attending this morning’s session at the Disclosures Tribunal.

Leon Farrell/Rollingnews

Rory Treanor

You served the time.

Why are you still doing the time?

Rory Treanor writes:

Removing convictions from people’s records is more important than giving employers free access to employee’s records.

Today is National Mandela Day. Long-term prisoner Mandela was an exceptional man in exceptional circumstances, but he is also a great reminder of how the label “criminal” tells you little or nothing about a person.

The Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016 allows for a person who is over the age of 18 at the time of the commission of a first offence, and; if seven years have passed since the conviction, and; who has completed their sentence, and; who has been of “good character” ever since, and; if the sentence was for less than 12 months; to consider that conviction to be “spent.”

This means the person doesn’t have to declare it to anyone other than a court.

That is fine, as far as it goes. It shouldn’t be the case that a person who does something wrong once has to carry that with them forever. But it is excessively simplistic and overly restrictive.

In the criminal justice system, there are four main reasons for punishing someone who commits a crime:

Retribution
Deterrence
Incapacitation
Rehabilitation

The socially conservative attitude to criminal punishment is that while a person might have served their sentence they will always be a criminal. This is admitting defeat. Such an attitude is saying that the state has no capacity to effectively rehabilitate.

The state fails to rehabilitate when the state fails to try. The more tools there are at the disposal of the state to promote rehabilitation, the better.

When a court imposes a custodial sentence it is common for it to be suspended, in whole or in part. This means that if a person is not of good behaviour then they will serve the whole of the sentence, the suspended part being reactivated.

People who enter prison gain remission, “time off for good behaviour.” It is an effective tool within prisons to maintain order.

But once a person emerges from prison they are still a criminal. The shame which is attached to a duty to disclose previous convictions deters seeking employment and so it increases poverty rates amongst offenders and so increases rates of repeat offending.

This is the antithesis of rehabilitation. The system is complicit in re-offending rates.

There is a significant problem with the 2016 Act as it does not ask the most important question: has the person chosen a better direction? Most people who stand to benefit from the Act were not going in any criminal “direction” at all. It was a once-off.

But if it is right in principle then it should be extended in practice.

It should not be limited to first-time offenders, it should not be limited to shorter sentences and it should not ignore the offence itself.

There are some offences that, due to their severity, might never be appropriate to be deemed “spent”, such as offences involving children, sexual offences and offences involving dishonesty.

But to say that a person, having committed an offence, is always a criminal, is damaging to the criminal justice system itself. This was acknowledged by the Children Act, 2001.

If a person is able to show their continued rehabilitation after completion of a sentence then a person should not be required to disclose the cause of their rehabilitation, in effect undermining those efforts.

When a judge is imposing a sentence, that judge should be entitled to fix a review date. At that time a person can apply to a court of equal jurisdiction to have their conviction declared “spent.”

As is the practice at present, the conviction still happened and may still be disclosed to a court. But that person will have better employment opportunities, better travel opportunities and be rewarded for their efforts since they were last convicted. They will lose that benefit if they offend again.

It will never be possible to put together hard statistics on who has benefited from the 2016 Act. This is because, while the state is content to label someone a criminal, the state has little concern for what happens to offenders further down the line.

Scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the human brain is still forming up to the age of 25. A person is more prone to engaging in risky behaviours and less likely to engage in long-term, strategic thinking below that age.

This means that young people, and men in particular, are more likely to go through a “wild” phase.

Laws are created by old people who have made it through that phase (relatively) unscathed. They literally do not think like the people who are going through that phase. People in that phase make up the vast majority of offenders.

Rory Treanor is a barrister, host of Brief Notes – the weekly legal podcast from Dublin City FM, and Social Democrats Local Area Rep for Pembroke-South Dock. Follow Rory on Twitter: @roryhtreanor

Pic: Garda.ie

Access to my body sensors!?

Swoon

‘J’ writes:

I’d like to get your readers’ views on this as maybe I’m being over the top…

So I replaced my lost iPhone4 last week thinking that Samsung would have better morals than Apple. But then I discovered an incredible level of intrusion with Google /Android.

Firstly, it took an age to turn off the microphone, with there being an intentional level of difficulty in finding out how to do it (I had to download the Google Now app to this).

Then I refused permissions for access to pics, emails etc. except for the basics (pictures for messages, microphone for calls etc.) which was also intentionally difficult to do.

Now I can’t even send an email without them wanting access to ‘Body Sensors’ (see pic). Regardless of the data privacy issues it’s the sheer obnoxiousness of the whole set-up that really gets me and I really wish I hadn’t bought it. Whatcha think?

Anyone?