Yip. Arent we the fools for letting this happen.

Fergus i agree with your take on the seanie affair that this is nothing more than window dressing

even when they are shown where to look they look at the whistle blowers like they are the criminals

Can you identify what the “crime against the state” was, and who allegedly committed it ? You can e-mail me via my website if you are worried about libel.

Have to be careful what I say here but I worked in “Ansbacher central” for a while – got the whole story from someone who used to carry bags of cash around Dublin for “depositors”! It’s all in the Moriarty report so I guess I shouldn’t be too worried?!

Contd: This was after the Sunday Independent uncovered a web of CRH Plc secretly controlled subsidiaries – arrangements that criminally breached company and competition law and in so doing penalised competitors and final consumers alike. Castlemore Quarries in Cork, Joseph Hogan, Foynes, Co. Limerick, Creeves Quarry in Limerick and Ardfert Quarries in Kerry were all exposed as being under the secret control of CRH Plc and there were / are several more.
Surprise, surprise – Appleby and his merry band of highly paid civil servants could not find any of these illegal subsidiaries which were the cornerstone of CRH Plc’s criminal structure and behaviour in Ireland.

It seemed that this somnambulant performance deemed Appleby eminently suitable for the new role of Director of Corporate Enforcement – at least in Harney’s eyes. “A safe pair of hands” as the Cabinet would say. In his 11 years as Director of Corporate Enforcement he steadfastly refused to initiate any form of investigation into the State’s pet company CRH Plc despite both he and his office and the dogs in the street knowing the extent of CRH Plc’s web of criminality in the form of secretly owned subsidiaries and price fixing and market sharing cartels. All consumers suffered – now Appleby is off into the sunset with a humungous retirement package. What is it about Irish Regulators, Patrick Neary, the Competition Authority, Ansbacher Inspectors, Moriarty Tribunal – Paul Appleby.

If I’ve told you once I’ve told you a thousand times, don’t exaggerate! ;-)

He’s 58.

The office does need to be completely changed. It’s just a paper tiger with bloated salaries.

Another one of our overpaid senior civil servants, that you only hear of when they retire with a kings ransom.
There are thousands of these guys hiding in back offices in government buildings.
Off to play golf with Pat Neary Paul???

another institution working its socks of for white collar criminals i bet seanie is shaking in his boots ha ha ha

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that a jury was now allowed to draw inferences from a suspect’s refusal to answer questions?

Relying on a voluntary statement to investigate a crime is a pretty poor way to have to investigate it and likely to result in no progress.

He’s not really talking about people who call by voluntarily he’s talking about arrested people.

@sean why do you say that? A statement of admission is a statement of admission. No reason at all for case not to proceed

@ mattoid
The fact that a jury may draw inferences makes it risky not to answer some questions, true (though the inferences that the jury may draw are limited). It still does not make answering compulsory.

@Sean Beag & Vinny Healy
Any prosecution that needs to depend on statements extracted from the persons accused under duress, however mild that duress may be, is unlikely to be very meritorious.

Fergus, who mentioned extracting statements under duress? Not sure what your point is

Fergus, who’s extracting statements under duress? Not sure what your point is.

Sorry for duplicate comment :-(

Well if the Irish permanent loans to Anglo and the fiasco of the golden circle Share deal at Anglo are not crimes against the state,I don’t know what other events in living history has contributed to the ruin of the country.

@ Vinny Healy
I apologise. I see now that it might be thought that I was putting that thought in your mouth or Sean Beag’s. I wasn’t. As to who is mentioning it, well Mr Appleby, with Mattoid’s apparent approval, comes very close, as does everyone who ever calls for “arrests” (rather than charges) or who agrees with proposals to extend periods of detention of people presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

How long do you think people should be detained? And surely your not advocating charging people instead of arresting and detaining them to allow for proper investigations of any crime they may be suspected for?

@M Bowe
The PTSB/Anglo and Maple transactions were *part of* the collapse; they did not cause it. To the extent that crimes were involved, they were not “offences against the state” any more than a postmistress embezzlement would be.

@ Vinny Healy
People who have not been convicted of a crime should not be detained at all IMHO, except to the extent necessary to formally charge them and ensure their attendance at court. If they are deemed a “flight risk” by the court, that would be another exception.

If the accused person is willing to make a statement and/or to answer questions, there is no need to detain him or her for the purpose of taking that statement or of answering those questions.

The “Anglo arrests” were pretty transparently simple “play-acting”. I would not be at all surprised if one or more of the people arrested did not actually suggest the arrests as a way to keep the atmosphere below boiling point. It was pathetic and disgraceful that FitzPatrick was arrested immediately on arrival at Dublin Airport when he had apparently telephoned from America that he would come back early and attend at Pearse Street to facilitate the laying of formal charges.

@Vinny Healy

Whoops ! I nearly forgot perhaps the most important part.

Yes, I most definitely AM “advocating charging people instead of arresting and detaining them to allow for proper investigations of any crime”.

From where on Earth did this widespread notion that detaining a suspect is required in order “to allow for proper investigation” come ?

Firstly Fergus most Criminals do not present at a police station to admit to their crimes hence the need for them to be arrested and detained for questioning.

Every single country in the world understands that suspects need to be interviewed and that during these interviews many suspects provided information which lead to them been discounted as suspect hence saving in the lengthy trial we would have had with your solution.

Also a person has to be arrested to be charged. At least if it to be done in accordance with the law.

What are you talking about Fergus?? Because I pointed out that a jury can now draw inferences from a suspect’s refusal to answer certain questions, you’re saying that I approve suspects being questioned “under duress”?
How exactly do you define “under duress”?
Because those big nasty investigators from the OCE asked awkward questions and expected to get a truthful answer the subject was put under undue duress?? Seriously??

@ Vinnie Healy

I have already mentioned that arresting for the purpose of being charged may be necessary. That causes me no problem.

If a suspect is willing to answer questions, why arrest them ? Just ask the questions.

If the suspect is not willing to answer questions, why arrest them if you cannot charge them ? They don’t have to answer any questions.

If you need a confession/admission from a suspect, your case is probably very weak. Why should you be entitled to imprison someone against whom there is only a very weak case – so weak that you cannot even charge them ?

@ mattoid

1. The phrase “undue duress” was not mine as far as I can see.

2. By duress, I simply mean compulsorily. An arrest is duress – the person arrested is deprived of their freedom to do as they please. A conversation with a person in that position is inevitably not conducted under the same conditions as an interview with someone who is free to get up and leave.

3. If I was incorrect in supposing you to sympathise with Mr Appleby’s proposal, I with draw that suggestion and I apologise.

Fergus,

Arresting someone for charging IS necesscary not “may be” necessary.

Generally a suspect who is willing to answer questions will not be arrested. However as you and me know every situation is different and there are things to consider like he may answer questions but not permitt finderprints or photographs or DNA samples to be taken. if its a very complex investigation which requires hours and hours of questioning then not to many people are going to volunteer to stay that long.

If a suspect is not willing to answer questions then they still have to be arrested and have questions put to them. It would be very neglectful of any police force not to put their evidence to a suspect and allow them the opportunity to answer it. Do you think there would be much crime solved if the police approached a suspect and asked,

Policeman. Will you answer questions if I arrest you?
Suspect. Not likely.
Policeman. Ok good chap head on about your buisness.

People are also arrested because of the complexity of the questions and number of questions anticipated. Its all very well to say they will come to the station by arrangement but will they stay as long as needed?

Its not a question of needing a confession/admission from a suspect. there is no one been imprisoned on a very weak case in actual fact the law is very clear on whats required before a person is detained for questioning. All of which has to be produced to a court in time.

Finally and most importantly do you think that you know more than every judicial system in the world.

@ Vinny Healy
I may reply at greater length tomorrow.

For now: how many white-collar criminals, however long the period of detention, would you expect to be convicted on the basis of answers given by them to questions ? Bear in mind that such criminals can be expected to know that they can refuse to answer almost every such question ?

How many convictions of any kind are *now* obtained on the basis of such answers ?

Amazing how 1 letter in a country’s name can make such a difference.