Holidays are problematic; do you take the pet with you?
What about your prostitute? Do you take her?
Secondly, the criminal parties to the arrangement with Michael Woods knew of their crimes; he, presumably, did not. Even if he did, an agreement to suppress the State’s obligation to prosecute crime or to relieve the perpetrators of liability in whole or in part for those crimes would be contrary to public policy. The agreement, far from being binding, would be unenforceable.
It is a criminal offence to resist a lawful arrest, but not an unlawful arrest. Some unlawful arrests are plainly that; more often than not they are seen to be unlawful with hindsight.
What has been happening in Ireland, after all in the case of the McCracken, Moriarty, Mahon, and Morris Tribunals, but the investigation of criminal conspiracies?
My post on audio recordings in Garda custody is about establishing the grounds for the making of adverse inferences at trial, not about the procedure for interrogation in Garda custody. Under Section 19A of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (as inserted by Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007), it is open to a court to make an adverse inference (of guilt; what else?) arising from …the failure of an accused to mention… [“…any fact relied on in his […]
“Continuous Professional Development” (CPD) is an idea with a banal element. It behooves everybody to stay on top of their job, and to express that in jargon is to suggest that the work of some people is beyond accountability; otherwise, why the need to nudge them to competence? Of course we know the work of some people is beyond accountability, but that is for another day and another subject. The Government’s new Bill on “Surveillance” is certainly a necessary topic […]
In case you decide to cycle from the pub, see Section 51 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.
Litigation lawyers fight. If a lawyer is not generally fighting, he/she is not in litigation. Sometimes the lawyer is fighting for a plaintiff and sometimes the lawyer is fighting for the defendant.
So, the accused is in a position where i) he is not obliged to say anything; ii) his solicitor’s advice is secret (privileged); and iii) he is menaced with an adverse inference if he remains silent.