Tag Archives: Frank Buttimer

buttimerbailey

[Ian Bailey, left, pictured with his solicitor Frank Buttimer leaving the Four Courts after he won a two-year legal battle against his extradition to France over the killing of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in west Cork 15 years ago in January 2012]

This morning, the Irish Examiner reports that French police will travel to Ireland next month to investigate the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case, under the Mutual Assistance Act 2008, and that Ms du Plantier’s parents Marguerite and Georges Bouniol are planning to hold a press conference in Cork on May 17.

Journalist Catherine Shanahan reports Mr Buttimer saying:

“How dare they think that they can come to this country and continue to investigate Mr Bailey, having already unlawfully tried to remove him from this country on foot of a European arrest warrant which the Supreme Court held to be unlawful; and in circumstances where it’s quite clear that the only so-called ‘evidence’ which created the warrant in the first place is the evidence which the government is now reviewing by appointing a commission of inquiry into allegations of police corruption.”

“How dare they continue to pursue a man who has not only not been charged with anything but, as far back as 13 years ago, our own director of public prosecutions produced documents that demolished the case against Ian Bailey.”

French probe into Ian Bailey a charade, says Buttimer (Irish Examiner)

Mark Stedman/Photocall Ireland

ianbutt

[Jules Thomas and Ian Bailey, with their solicitor Frank Buttimer, outside the Four Courts in 2012 – after Mr Bailey won a two-year legal battle against his extradition to France over the 1996 killing of Sophie Toscan du Plantier]

Yesterday, the Government announced the terms of reference for Supreme Court Judge Nial Fennelly’s Commission of Investigation.

The investigation will look at the recording of calls, other than 999 calls, to and from Garda stations between January 1, 1980 and November 27, 2013; the Garda investigation into the death of Sophie Toscan du Plantier and the sequence of events leading up to the stepping down of former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan last month.

Under the terms of reference, Judge Fennelly will also establish whether any of the recorded material has been destroyed and establish “any instances during the relevant period where the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions made use of the data and information produced by the said telephone recording systems for any purpose”.

Further to this, Ian Bailey’s solicitor Frank Buttimer has told the Irish Times today that he believes the role of the DPP, the Department of Justice and the Attorney General in the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case should be included in the terms of reference.

Mr Buttimer maintains the DPP was aware of concerns surrounding the case and the handling of witnesses – Marie Farrell and Martin Graham – back in the late 1990s, while he said the DPP has also been aware of three senior gardaí meeting with the State solicitor for West Cork, Malachy Boohig, allegedly trying to secure a decision to prosecute Mr Bailey.

“We want to know why were these sleeping dogs let lie by the DPP office, the Department of Justice and why did the DPP/Department of Justice knowing all this, allowed the French state come here to seek to remove Mr Bailey from the jurisdiction in what we believe was an unlawful action.”

Bailey solicitor calls for DPP’s office to be included in Garda inquiry (Barry Roche, Irish Times)

Full terms of reference here

buttimer4
[Frank Buttimer, the solicitor for Ian Bailey and his partner Jules Thomas in their civil action against the State, at the High Court this morning]

In the High Court today, Martin Giblin, SC, for Ian Bailey and Jule Thomas, told the court that there had been “an extraordinary level of communication between the gardaí and the media of which we were unaware”.

“It is in the statement of claim that the media was used against the plaintiffs. The level of contact is beyond belief, we have a list involving hundreds of communications with journalists and we weren’t aware the communication was of that nature. It seems the operation to retrieve that material is ongoing.”

Further to this, Mr Buttimer spoke to Mary Wilson on RTÉ’s Drivetime this evening about the phone call conversations that were recorded at Bandon Garda Station in relation to the investigation into the 1996 murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, for which Ian Bailey was arrested twice and released without charge on both occasions.

Specifically, they discussed the high level of contact between gardaí and journalists. They later talked about Mr Bailey’s legal team’s efforts to obtain the names of three senior gardaí pertaining to the investigation.

Mary Wilson: “But isn’t that just what you’d expect to happen at a time, this was a hugely high-profile murder that took place in December of 1996. Journalists, not just from Ireland but from France as well, had come to West Cork, they were pursuing the case. So you would, in the course of events, you’d expect a lot of contact?”

Frank Buttimer: “You would of course, absolutely, that applies to any criminal event or of any event of general interest to the media, the media has to make its contacts to put out the news, there’s no issue about that.”

Wilson: “So what makes this different?”

Buttimer: “Well we allege, in our proceedings, that there was a strategic interest on the part of An Garda Síochána in utilising the media and there are two specific purposes which we maintain in our pleadings that they had in mind when they were using the media. Purpose No.1 was an evidential matter and I’m under some constraint here in relation to the directions to the High Court, so I’ll be very, very careful about that. But the second, and it’s quite an obvious one, which we have alleged, is that the fact that Mr Bailey’s arrest and indeed matters leading up to his arrest were strategically leaked to the media for the purpose of portraying Mr Bailey as the likely party responsible in relation to this matter, to create an image in the minds of the public that this was the person who must have committed this heinous crime so as that there would be an image of him in that respect, which we say strategically was used by An Garda Síochána for purposes which we would say were improper.”

Wilson: “So the journalists were used by gardaí to spin a particular line? Is that what you’re saying?”

Buttimer: “We have said it, it’s in our public pleadings, we have said it, yes.”

Wilson: “Now something else you asked for today as well, was access to information involving the identity of three senior gardaí named in a document, I think, before the Supreme Court?”

Buttimer: “Yeah, this has been in the public domain again, for some period of time. We received in an unsolicited fashion, from the Department of Justice, in the appeal against the extradition, certain material which we had not known existed. In that material are certain memoranda prepared by the Office of the DPP, and the local State solicitor in West Cork, tending to show, what we would allege, and which is stated in the memoranda, to be improper approaches by senior members of An Garda Síochána, whose purpose was to influence a decision on the part of the DPP. We have sought the identities of those senior members of An Garda Síóchána by way of a discovery application to the State. The defendants in the proceedings have maintained that it’s not a matter for them because the material in fact is the property of, or is in the possession of the DPP’s office. We have confirmed to the court today that we have applied to the DPP’s office to receive redacted memoranda in relation to that matter so that we can identify those parties formally so that we can see whether this whole information that we’re looking for fits into the strategy which we believe was applied to generate the, what we would call, false image, false intention, proper intention to prosecute and matters of that nature. We expect or we would hope that the DPP will respond to our request in the relatively near future in that regard.”

Listen back in full here

Level of contact between gardaí and media in Toscan du Plantier case ‘beyond belief’ (RTÉ)

Sam Boal/Photocall Ireland

buttbail

[Solicitor Frank Buttimer, Jules Thomas and Ian Bailey outside the Four Courts in 2012]

Frank Buttimer, the solicitor representing Ian Bailey and his partner Jules Thomas in their civil action against the State, spoke to Cathal MacCoille this morning on Morning Ireland in relation to his clients.

His interview this morning came ahead of today’s Cabinet discussion about the terms of reference of the commission of investigation into the recording of incoming and outgoing Garda station phonecalls over the last three decades, and a motion of no confidence against Justice Minister Alan Shatter – which will be debated in the Dáil tonight and tomorrow night.

Cathal MacCoille: “Could you just summarise for us, first of all, what you are alleging in this case?”

Frank Buttimer: “Very simply, Cathal, we’re alleging that there was a conspiracy to secure the improper prosecution of Ian Bailey based upon improper Garda practices in terms of evidence gathering and all that flows from that…[inaudible]

MacCoille: “And is, up to this stage, is the State denying everything?”

Buttimer: “Absolutely, we’re being required to prove everything. And that’s what we’re hoping to do Cathal.”

MacCoille: “When did you become aware of the existence of, or the possibility of the existence of recorded phone conversations?”

Buttimer: “Formally, last year, in the course of discovery proceedings which we took to secure, which we’re entitled to do, it’s common in any civil proceedings, we made a discovery application to the court and that process, I suppose, crystalised in May of last year. There were further sort of clarifications of the order that we got in May of last year in July. Then we got further delivery of material in terms of discovery of matters late last year. So it’s been a process which has been ongoing for some time. Now, however, I must say Cathal, this couldn’t be any secret at this point in time, the 2001 critique that was done by the then DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions] revealed to us that we saw in 2011, in the extradition proceedings, it revealed, which we already knew anyway, allegedly highly questionable practices which were commented upon by the Supreme Court in trenchant terms, during their dealings with the extradition appeal.”

MacCoille: “But the phonecalls, when you said you ‘formally became aware of them’ last year, informally?”

Buttimer: “I’d rather not get into the detail of the case, Cathal, because I suppose assuming that it is the case that’s exercising everybody’s concern, it is a matter that is pending before the court, you know, in fairness as well.”

MacCoille: “Well you have received documents under discovery, is the process of discovery, from the State by you, is it complete?”

Buttimer: “No, the discovery process is ongoing and I suppose it’s public knowledge again that we have to go back into the High Court to have the court adjudicate upon a claim that the State is making, with regard to the issue of privilege. In other words, where there are materials that are possessed by one side to the case, to the case, that side can claim privilege for all manner of reasons and the State is claiming privilege in relation to certain significant materials. The reason, essentially, why the State is claiming privilege is, is that it is in the public interest that these materials which they don’t want us to see should not be given over to us. We maintain, and reply to that, that privilege is defeated by fraud in effect or by malpractice and we will be strongly arguing for the High Court that the State has no leg to stand on in relation to such an assertion. In other words, that the public interest, the interest of the State should be served by not revealing what we consider to be these highly questionable practices.”

MacCoille: “Just to be clear about this. You received material from, as I understand it, from the State about 11 days ago, which related to phonecalls or transcripts of phonecalls?”

Buttimer: “Again, I won’t comment on specifics, all I can confirm is that the discovery process is ongoing, I must say Cathal, I’m reading about my own case as much in the media as I am dealing with it myself.”

MacCoille: “Just to be clear about this though: You received material 11 days ago, and are you telling us that the State is seeking to, they’ve given you the material, but they want the court to hold that as privilege, in other words that it can’t be used and can’t be disclosed?”

Buttimer: “No, to be fair, we have received a certain amount of material, the argument has yet to occur about whether we should receive material over which the State is claiming privilege, that is Judge [John] Hedigan, that argument has to be determined by the High Court judge who is managing this case that application is pretty much pending at this point in time, we’re just doing some paperwork on it.”

MacCoille: “Yeah, so, ok, can we assume that material related to phonecalls which you have been given, that’s, the State isn’t going to claim privilege over that and that we will hear about it?”

Buttimer: “Again, I would rather just to maintain my position on that at the moment, Cathal, because it touches upon matters that are between myself and the office of the State solicitor presently.”

MacCoille: “All right. So, OK, is the position, of material that you have, whatever it is you don’t want to go into details. But the material that you have, the State is not claiming privilege over that material, that you have already? The State is, or maybe, claiming privilege over other material which you haven’t yet got?

Buttimer: “Correct.”

MacCoille: “So how long is this going to take before it comes to court?”

Buttimer: “Well, you know, when you’re dealing with the State and maybe my own situation as well, it’s taken a while but, you know, you must remember the proceedings, by the way, Colm, have been in being since 2006 or 2007. We had the interruption people I’m sure are aware in the meantime of the attempt by the State, well the French state actually to remove Mr Bailey from the jurisdiction and all sorts of other activities in the meantime. So it’s been a, it’s been a  great battle.”

MacCoille: “And it’s ongoing. Just to return to the phonecalls. I know you don’t want to go into details but you said you became aware of these formally last year and they were referred to rather obliquely, I think in the High Court but on relation to the phones material, are you satisfied, you’ve got what’s there?”

Buttimer: “Well I have what I have, is as much as I can tell you?”

MacCoille: “Well are you satisfied with what you have? That the discovery in relation to the phones issue that you raised a year ago, that you’ve got what you wanted to get?”

Buttimer: “You’re asking me if I’m satisfied with what I have. I firmly believe, and my client is alleging this, that is a gross conspiracy, in conspiratorial matters, there are many, many things I’m sure that went on that I would love to access and I’m going to keep on trying.”

MacCoille: “All right, Frank Buttimer, solicitor for Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas, thank you very much for talking to us.”

Listen back here

Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland