There can be no justification for An Garda Siochana downing tools in the case of a violent offender on a rampage. At the very least An Garda Siochan have a duty to protect the public to the best of their ability. If they don’t feel motivated to do that, they are failing in their basic duties. Remember, Sylvia Roche Kelly was murdered. That’s the price if An Garda Siochana can’t be bothered.

In fairness, An Garda Siochana show a very high level of motivation and even positive enthusiasm for arresting elderly women for no payment of TV fines. No problem with motivation on these offences.

Peter,
I have to take issue with your ‘facts’.

An Garda Siochana DO NOT arrest people for TV licences. That is a matter that is purely dealt with by summons. The television licence fee & summons is collected/issued by An Post on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, who has responsibility for broadcasting policy in Ireland.

I get what you’re trying to do which is draw into the open the two extremes of the ‘Justice’ system in Ireland. But please do it by using facts and not clearly making things up.

Also, no elderly people are arrested for TV licenses. Pensioners have free licenses. Can everyone stop this rubbish about them in every story? It detracts from the topic.

I made nothing up. The Department of CMNR is the prosecutorial authority, the District Court is the sentences but the enforcer is An Garda Siochana which prioritises such arrest and imprisonment. It is odd that there is such a willingness to arrest and detain TV licence defaulters but a widespread failure to enforce District Court bench arrest warrants. I am addressing the sharp end of law enforcement and you are intentionally obfuscating the point.

Peter,
Your wrong. I can guarantee you first hand, the Gardai do not arrest anyone for tv licences. There is no power of arrest for tv licences. Period. You can only be summonsed. And that summons is done by An Post and TV licence inspectors. Absolutely nothing to do with Gardai. Nothing. Not even a tiny bit.

You’re scaremongering and blatantly lying now.

The summons leads to a Court hearing. The Court hearing leads to a conviction. The District Justice imposes a prison sentence and An Garda Siochana arrest the defendant and bring the defendant to Prison.

I find it interesting that you make a accusation of blatant lying. That accusation is ad home em and is an example of deliberate obfuscation.

The Guerin Report will lead to a full statutory inquiry and no longer will these s deals of Garda corruption and incompetence be concealed.

In Britain the barbaric system of imprisonment for non payment of TV licence fees is being abolished and perhaps some day we will follow that example.

If you are found guilty in a criminal court and a custodial sentence is imposed then the prison service take custody of you. Nothing to do with the Gardai.

In not trying to have a go at you but you really are wrong. The statutory and constitutional role of the Gardai is to investigate and prevent crime. The Gardai do not have anything to do with the prison service.

As a quick breakdown of how the prosecution side of the legal system works:
Gardai investigate an allegation of a crime and gather evidence. If the matter is serious then a file goes to the…
DPP, who act as independent oversight & evaluate the evidence (weight of the evidence/legal procedures carried out correctly/weigh if it’s in the public interest to charge etc). The DPP then direct a charge(s) to be brought against the person. Which leads to the CPS…
The CPS, or Chief State Solicitor actually prosecute the case (minor cases are prosecuted by Gardai themselves). The CPS carry out the legal arguments in court and make the case for the state. If you’re found guilty then it’s the IPS…
The Irish prison service (IPS) are in the courts and they take the person into custody as soon as the judge finds them guilty and imposes a prison sentence then and there (judges may well find guilty and put the matter back for another time for sentencing).

In sorry Peter, but you are clearly wrong about Gardai arresting people for tv licences. THEY CANT DO IT. and the Gardai have no say in prison matters.

Similarly, you cannot receive a summons to go to court, then go to court, be found guilty and then arrested.

That’s not constitutional. You cannot be arrested for something that you’re guilty of. Maybe you didn’t mean to type those words, but that’s how it reads in your comment.

So please, have a go at the Gardai for what they’ve done wrong. And they have done wrong. But you need to stope writing things that are blatantly wrong, and you need to stop writing on things that you clearly do not know enough about and are making things up.

“Detain” would be a better word than “arrest” because arrest has a legal meaning and an ordinary meaning. If that is the entirety of your objection, we are in agreement. Make all involved accountable, including An Garda Siochana who failed so abysmally and egregiously.

The point is that Garda failures left the way open for a woman to be murdered by a violent offender with form.

I suspect that Peter is a little fuzzy about the way it works. I am a retired Garda sergeant. If offenders are convicted in court and a monetary fine is imposed – as is always the case with TV licence convictions and they fail to pay it after some months the court issues a penal warrant directing the Gardai to collect the money and if the offender fails to pay to arrest that person and bring him/her to a prison designated in the penal warrant. Gardai are legally bound to arrest people who fail to pay penal warrants. This is not however a choice made by Gardai – the court penal warrant directs the Gardai to arrest the offender if he/she does not pay the penal warrant. So it is wrong to be blaming Gardai since they have no discretion in the matter and are only acting on a legally issued court penal warrant.

In this case the streets would have been safer had the Gardai done their job.

The sad reality is there are deficiencies across the judicial system.

There have been cases where gardai have done a good investigative job, brought dangerous criminal to Court and the person gets bail / lenient sentence. Guess what the crim commits more serious crime……

There was a particular high profile murder in galway about 10 years ago. The murderer had previous convictions and recent court appearances. The gardai did their best but judge have him bail. A couple of months later. …..

Inaccurate. Murder and violence rates are higher in places with the death penalty.

Death penalty is now the answer.

Death penalty is not the answer.

The death penalty is never the answer. As a society we then condone the intentional killing of a person and become mass murderers. An eye for an eye is not the correct logic.

I disagree fergal , keeping a murderer caged for life is wrong for various reasons .. The main reason is in this soft legal system he will be eventually freed usually after 14 years . .. Which is a major insult to the victims family. Also on that point it’s only a matter of time before anyone doing life will be entitled to a release date , that’s an insult to all law abiding citizens. So while the victim is 6 feet under rotting , life cut short , the murderer can get on with he’s life . Also keeping a murderer locked up for life costs the taxpayer a fortune .. Roughly 90k every year , it’s cheaper just to kill him. Lifers are entitled to a tesco or Supervalu account , more visits and phone calls .. So IPS are actually awarding them for doing life .

When An Garda Siochana treat violent crime with the priority and importance it deserves, there will be a massive improvement.

Fortunately, Judicial sentencing policy is improving and reflecting the true gravity of violent crime.

The crucial factor is that An Garda Siochana learn the importance of putting the full facts before the judiciary so that they make fully informed bail decisions.

Violent crime must take priority. An Garda Siochan are there to protect the public against violent crime and that makes the early arrest and detention of violent offenders critically important. Station bail is often abused, as in this tragic case of Sylvia Roche-Kelly. My heart goes out to her family.

Of course I am appalled at the circumstances that led to the murder of Ms Kelly and agree that the Gardai have questions that need answering.
My opinion (as a retired Garda Sergeant) is that there was/is a very unhealthy culture in the Gardai of ‘don’t rock the boat’. Many Superintendents and Chief Superintendents rate a sergeants ability or competence on their capacity to avoid controversy or at least to deal with it themselves and not be bothering them about it. I often despaired at Superintendents and chief superintendents attitude to problem issues and especially problem Gardai. Very often the issue was simply thrown back in my face for me to deal with or I was opposed outright and sometimes undermined deliberately. Top local Garda management want the quite life and are very adverse to making the hard decisions. There is widespread fear among them over the GRA and some problem Gardai are just let be rather than being taken on. .

Our criminal justice system, including some, but far from all members of An Garda Siochana, have insufficient concern about the victims of violent crime. Trivial matters are prioritised and the really serious crimes receive insufficient attention.

Totally agree!!

Peter, I agree with you that the previous incidents involving McGrath were not put to the court. There is clearly a series of questions that need to be asked over that. I’m not trying to detract from the issue of the Gardai, but McGrath up on a charge sheet before a court for attempting to take a 5 year old shouldn’t need his previous incidents to come up. That one single charge sheet is absolutely enough for a judge to put him in custody.

Like I said, we need to establish the Garda side, but there’s no reason apart from an incompetent judge that allowed McGrath out on bail.

The facts concerning the abduction were not put to the Court and the other two offences were not out to the Court. The Judge may or may not have been incompetent but the fact remains the two very serious and violent offences were not informed to the Court and it seems that another possible , the suspected sexual assault offence on the bus was not put to the Court.

The temptation here is that, due to the immense and deserved popularity of An Garda Siochana, to seek to avoid placing any blame or responsibility with An Garda Siochan.

Sergeant McCabe is to be commended for exposing this litany of Garda disasters and bringing this out into public view. The family of Sylvia Roche Kelly and the victim tax driver were making no progress until all of this was exposed. Sergeant MCCabe is a credit to a proud Force which has been badly tarnished by the neglect and failure of duty of many other members of the Force.

We had Donegal, then Louth and we now have Cavan. What else will emerge as a statutory Commission of Investigation proceeds with its inquiry?

It clearly states in the article above that a detective sergeant in Tipperary gave evidence to the court that he believed McGrath would commit more and more serious offences but that the judge did hold the detective sergeant in enough seniority and so the judge granted bail.

Stop trying to avoid my point.

The Gardai failed to bring the other matters before the court. The judge decided the belief of a detective sergeant was effectively worthless. The judge granted the bail against the wishes of the Gardai.

The judge allowed McGrath out, and then went on the commit murder.

If you ask me, the judiciary are in the same boat as the Gardai. But no one is going to ask that question, and as you’ve also repeatedly done, tried to deflect attention away for the judges.

You conveniently ignore the concealment of the direction of the DPP from the judge, you ignore the concealment of the Tipperary offences, you misled in a previous reply that the matter of the child abduction was put before the court, when it was not, and you conveniently ignore that the accused was released on station bail.

Clearly you have a vested interest interested in misrepresenting the actual position.

I note how defensive you are of An Garda Siochana.

Thankfully, we have the courage of Sergeant McCabe and ex Garda Wilson to thank.

No more concealment and evasion. Let the facts emerge and let accountability apply to all.

It is a shocking disgrace that an extremely violent and life threatening attach was treated as mere assault and not assault occasioning bodily harm.

An Garda Siochana are the first point of contact in crime cases and if they are incompetent or negligent or worse, the rest of the system of law enforcement is ineffective and even impotent.

On a positive note Sergeant McCabe has brought out these appalling facts into the public domain, the obstructers of a full investigation are out of the way and we can look forward to accountability and reform.

There is nothing been conveniently ignored on my part.

I don’t know how to make this more clear to you:
• The Gardai were wrong and failed, on multiple occasions.
• I have nothing against the Guerin report, and in fact I think it has shown an amazing level of incompetence in the Gardai.
• There is no part of the Guerin report that I disagree with, or say that Guerin was wrong.

So let’s make that clear. There is nothing that I’m been evasive on or ignoring.

My point all along has been that the judge was wrong and that needs to be looked at. As I’ve stated before:
• A detective sgt have evidence against the judge grab to bail, the Judge granted bail anyway.
• The matter of the attempted child abduction was serious enough on its own for the judge to have refused bail. But the judge granted bail anyway.

You keep trying to twist my words, but this post should at least clarify that we are not opposite sides of the argument.
My point, once again, is that the Judges were just as wrong as the Gardai. And we should be inquiring into them, but instead we’re not. And that itself is wrong for the country and wrong for us who look up to the criminal justice system to keep law and order.

In this case the Judge, a District Justice, could only act on the restricted information made available to him by the prosecuting Garda who did not disclose vital and material evidence relevant to the Judge’s decision making. There is no record that I have been able to trace that the child abduction was disclosed to the Court and you have not quoted any source. You have not disclosed that the accused was on station bail. You have not disclosed the DPP’s direction which was not disclosed to the Court. You are spinning the true facts so as to distract from the full extent of Garda culpability in this matter.

By all means look at judicial policy and conduct but look first at the egregious failures of an Garda Siochana fully to infirm the Court. The Guerin Report discloses serious misconduct which every citizen should be concerned about. An Garda Siochana is the first point of public contact in these matters. If the process is defective to start with, the rest of the process will be misinformed.

My email address is prichardpeter1@gmail.com if you wish to use your knowledge of criminal procedures in order to assist complainants to the the statutory commission of investigation. I may only be an ordinary member of the public but I know incompetence and dereliction of duty when I see it.

Peter you are consistently saying that the judge wasn’t informed of the full facts of the Tipperary case, he was. You also mention that he wasn’t told about the DPP’s direction, what are you referring to here? Is it the DPP’s direction of Assault Causing Harm in the Cavan case, which if you look at the time line wouldn’t have been given when the bail objection to the Tipperary case was happening.

Here’s a link which clarifies the bail objection in relation to the Tipperary case.
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/seven-garda-reasons-for-refusing-bail-to-killer-mcgrath-30054030.html

Peter I’m not going to email you.
As you pointed out, your an ordinary member of the public.
I am a legal expert in criminal law. You, as stated by yourself, are not. But that doesn’t stop you making false statements and putting out wrong information about court procedures.
If you’re not willing to listen to an expert that has constructively told you where you’ve gone wrong, then there really isn’t any point in emailing you.
You are part of the problem when you start putting out wild untrue accusations with no basis. You are part of the solution when you start learning the reality and start becoming part of the process.
The Guerin report is a prime example of this. The report stuck to reality. It is nearly beyond belief what the Gardai did and did not do. And I hope to god the inquiry will dig that out. But you cannot go round and make stuff up (like arresting people for tv licences/Gardai detaining persons found guilty in court/etc). You simply can’t.

Leaving criminal, criminal procedure and law enforcement in the hands of proclaimed experts such as you has hardly produced effective and acceptable results.

My rule of thumb is to respectfully consider the views, opinions and insights of legal experts such as Sean Guerin who is open about his identity, has access to some of the documentary materials and personnel involved and who does not have a vested interest in promoting a particular view point.

I made no false allegations and, unlike you, I have not sought to plant red herrings to distract from the truth.

I do not hide behind anonymity and I make no apology fir criticising an Garda Siochana. Unlike you, I do not seek to defame Judges.

Yiu say that you are a legal expert in criminal law. Are you a practicising barrister or a practicising solicitor?

I made it clear that I was addressing the District Court hearing in Virginia County Cavan.

Are yiu happy that full disclosure was made to the District Judge in Vurginia County Cavan by an Garda Siochana.

I’m replying on the Guerin Report.

The Thowaway is a legal expert in Criminal Law. In fact, The Throway, a good name, is a serving member of An Garda Siochana who consistently blames the judiciary. No wonder he hides behind a cloak of anonymity.

Peter if you are talking about the Court in Cavan then why are you mentioning the child abduction in Tipperary which happened in October? You seem to be melding the two things into one.

What I am saying is this, the Gardai made massive mistakes in Cavan, they did not in Tipperary.

The Gardai never objected to bail in Cavan, they did in the Tipperary case. (They of course should have in Cavan too)

The judge in the Tipperary case heard the full facts of the case in Tipperary ie. the break in and attempted child abduction. The Gardai objected to McGrath’s bail on 7 different grounds and told the judge they felt he would commit further serious crime. Having heard all this the Judge still gave him bail.

Justice 4 All is a group which is doing wonderful work and has filled the void. I’ve been motivated by the denials and minimisation of the Throwaway to send a dossier on the Garda Siochan failures in Mullingar Garda Station which resulted in the murder of Michael Creighton to Justice 4 All.

All citizens need to get actively engaged and to support the efforts to investigate An Garda Siochana and to return it to the principled and law respecting force it once was before the bad apples spread the rot.

Just hearing reports of Garda Siochan routinely beating up suspects caught with stolen cards and then assaulting a medical doctor who protested over the assaults.

An Garda Siochan was allowed to run amok but there are many good Gardai and hopefully the cancer of abuse of power, criminality, and complicity in violent crime as well as targeting innocent people can be removed.

Happened in 2007, money everywhere that year.

Yes, no cutbacks back in 2007. Good point.

The purpose of the bench warrant was to bring an absconding criminal before the Court so that he could be dealt with by the Judge. The murderer, later convicted, was on a crime spree of robberies and violent assaults in Mullingar, and not arrested fir his offences and not brought before the Court as directed by the Judge when he was walking around Pearse Street and Mount Street in Mullingar. So many members of the public complained about this but the offender was not arrested until after he killed a good a kind man, Michael Creighton.

The fact is that the offender refused to come before the Court on three violent assaults. Had he come before the Court he would have received a custodial sentence or been remitted for prosecution by the DPP.

A bench warrant only means you are brought before a judge because you failed to turn up on a previous arranged occasion. There is nothing more or less serious than that.

The reality is that 99% of bench warrant suspects are solely given a new court date and the whole court process starts up again. And the judge usually gives that date months down the line.

A bench warrant means a person is to be brought to the closest and first available sitting of a court. It doesn’t mean that you will be brought before the same judge who is presiding over your case. And if it’s not the same judge, then your case will be put back to a time when that judge is available, and put months down the line that all the parties (injured party/Gardai/witnesses) can be notified to attend.

Unless there is a history (& it’s judges discretion whether 2 warrants is a history or 30 warrants is a history) of bench warrants there is no ability by Gardai to object to the continuing bail of the suspect.

It’s is almost unheard of, and I mean I’ve never heard or experienced it ever, that a suspect is brought before the courts on a bench warrant and the judge had gone to a full hearing then and there. It does not happen (Maybe that’s a question of the judges you should be looking to have in the inquiry!)

So yes, the Gardai failed to execute the bench warrant. They need to answer for that.

Stop sensationalising with lies. You’re making up court procedures that don’t exist.

Interesting how you have managed to minimise what a bench arrest warrant is and fail to recognise that it is a lawful judicial order to be obeyed even by An Garda Siochana.

Bail and bench warrants are separate matters even though a bench warrant is used where an accused on bail fails to turn up for a court hearing.

I see that you are highly motivated to put down red herrings.

I said nothing about continuity of judges but arresting and detaining an accused who fails to attend Court for a hearing on an assault case is critically important. It is important not to allow violent person run amok and continue to commit violent offences. The murders of Sylvia Roche Kelly and Michael Creighton are just two examples of the consequences of Garda failure to do their lawful duties.

I agree with you that violent offenders need to be out into custody.

A bench warrant is slightly different to an arrest warrant. You can arrest a person on foot of both. An arrest warrant is applied for by Gardai (or the DPP/CPS) for a specific reason. EG a suspect is not complying with their bail conditions. It catches most people by surprise that there actually isnt a power of arrest if a person fails to abide by their bail conditions and that a Garda need apply for an arrest warrant.

A bench warrant is issued for non attendance only. A bench warrant can be applied for to arrest an injured party, a witness or an accused. It is a specific warrant for non attendance. That is why Gardai cannot apply to have someone arrested on a bench warrant to be put into custody unless there is a specific bench warrant history and the judge believes that the person will not turn up again for the next date….

…My raising the issue of continuity of judges is one that reflects reality. Especially in the country a judge will move around the areas holding different courts on different days. The legality of a bench warrant is that you must be brought to a court sitting at the closest and earliest opportunity. The Gardai have no say in the matter of taking you to a court say next Wednesday. If your arrested on a bench warrant today, you go to the nearest court at the earliest time that day, otherwise you can take a Habeas Corpus action against the state. What happens there is that you likely end up before a judge that knows nothing of your case, and so they put it back to a sitting with the correct presiding judge and at a later date. This usually allows suspects to go on a rampage. Again, that’s an issue with the Judges and the Courts and something which I think should be looked at in conjunction with the Guerin report.

At least a violent offender can be taken off the streets and remanded in custody. Station bail and failure to enforce arrest warrants in the case of violent offenders facilitates their continuance of violence against the public. It is not only the Judges who are responsible.

Are you impressed by the principled and exposing actions of Sergeant McCabe?

That is what I’ve been trying to explain to you.

You cannot put a violent offender into custody because you’ve executed a bench warrant.

The only lawful means of putting a person in custody having arrested them on a bench warrant is restricted to whether the judges believes that the person will abscond again.

You mentioned that there is a failure to enforce arrest warrants – I have not seen anything in Guerin report that says that Gardai had 1.) made an application to the courts for an arrest warrant in any of the cases mentioned, & 2.) that they failed to enforce said arrest warrant.

It should be noted as well that you cannot simply walk in and apply for an arrest warrant for any reason or at any time. Arrest warrants are only applied for in certain circumstances (this is a court procedure, not a Garda procedure).

Perhaps you could tell me where this arrest warrant is in relation to the Guerin report. I’d be interested to find out.

The bench warrant applies to the sad case of Michael Creighton, a good friend and a decent man who lost his life, murdered because of Garda dereliction of duty. It is a case broadly similar to that Sylvia Roche Kelly.

An Garda Siochan need to abide by directions and orders from Judges.

Peter the bail objections regarding the Tipperary case were printed in one of the papers a few months ago. The judge was informed of the full facts of the Tipperary case and the Sergeant stated it was his opinion that McGrath would commit further serious offences…the judge gave him bail.

I think the main f**k up occurred in Cavan and it was compounded when the Sergeant in Tipp wasn’t informed of the actual seriousness of the offence when he contacted them, which he was obviously doing because he was putting bail objections together.

Spend a little time sitting in on high court bail hearings and you will see how easy it is for violent criminals who are repeat offenders to get bail, even when the Gardai are vigorously objecting to the bail. The high court seems to see bail as a right not a luxury.

This was a District Court hearing in Virginia not High Court bail application.

I would prefer much stricter bail laws but this may require a further Constitutional amendment in view of bail policies laid down by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The issue here is Garda failure, fir whatever reason, to appraise the District judge sitting in Virginia of the full facts, including the direction of the DPP.

I look forward to full accountability and reform.

In this case, Jerry McGrath was initially out on station bail, not Court bail, when he committed further offences. The assault on the taxi driver was minimised and that led to the subsequent problems culminating in the death of Sylvia Roche Kelly.

Actually Peter I was talking about the bail objection in the Tipperary case which was after the events in Cavan. The point I was making is that the district court judge in Tipperary was made aware of the facts of the Tipperary case, the Sergeant outlined his bail objections including his belief that McGrath would commit further serious crime and the judge have him bail. Yes there are serious questions in relation to what happened in Cavan, and if the Sergeant in Tipp had been properly informed of the seriousness of this incident I’m sure this would’ve been conveyed to the district court judge in Tipp, tragically this was not the case. I still find it amazing that a judge could give McGrath bail considering the nature of his offence in Tipp.

And yes, I know this was a district court bail hearing, I was merely making a point about High Court Bail, which I think is relevant as, if McGrath’s bail was refused at district court level then he would’ve been going to the high court looking for bail.

And just to help peter check out this link which sets out the 7 objections to McGrath’s bail in relation to the Tipperary offence.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/seven-garda-reasons-for-refusing-bail-to-killer-mcgrath-30054030.html

James,
Unfortunately Gardai are prohibited by court rules to provided a judge with a list of previous convictions in an ordinary bail objection. This could be seen as been prejudicial to the suspect.

They can include the these previous convictions under a specific bail objection known as a Section 2 bail objection (similar application can be made under the OCallahan Rules).

I would hope the inquiry would establish whether Gardai ever pursued a Sect 2 bail objection.

Peter,

I’ve included the details of the bail objection to McGrath by Gardai for the charge of the attempted child abduction. This DOES NOT detract from the problems in the Guerin report, and I am not getting the Gardai off the hook. This was down to the judge, and is one of the reasons why the Gardai and Judges failed Sylvia.

The bail hearing took place on October 30, 2007 in Limerick District Court in front of Judge Tom O’Donnell. At the bail hearing, Det Sgt John Long laid out the seven reasons why the court should refuse the bail application:

• That the defendant was a flight risk due to the seriousness of the charges.

• The weight of evidence against the defendant.

• The length of sentence on conviction.

• The DPP was considering more serious charges against Jerry McGrath arising from the incident.

• The fact that the defendant gave his address as “of no fixed abode”.

• The defendant lived in the same neighbourhood as the victim’s family, who were terrified.

• Gardai feared the defendant may commit more crimes of a serious nature.

However, despite this the judge granted bail.

I should add, that these objection were made on the attempted child abduction charge. A few weeks before Sylvia was murdered.

Please refer to the Court hearing in the District Court in Virginia county Cavan.

The name of the murder victim is Sylvia Roche Kelly. I use her full name out of respect and due to the fact that I was unfamiliar with her. Only friends and family should address the deceased by her first name. It’s a simple matter of respect. I don’t mean to criticise you only to make the discussion before respectful, if you don’t mind.

Peter,

You clearly have your own agenda that you are refusing to move from. Even though I have clearly shown that you have lied (Gardai arresting tv licence offenders/Gardai acting as the prison service), that you do not understand legal procedure (bail & bench warrant…you stated arresting someone on a bench warrant means you can lock them up & have a hearing), are clearly uninformed of the argument (you said the bail objections for the child abduction didn’t happen…even though I’ve printed the name of the judge, the date, & the detective sgt who objected as well as a list of the objections).

It is quite clear that you possess a great zeal for these issues in the Guerin report. It is however regrettable that you carry that zeal with misinformation and ignorance. You could be an asset that could champion the cause, instead you have only weakened the cause by stating falsehoods.

Repeated accusations of lies from an anonymous commenter who keeps using pedantic points about TV licences carries no weight. You are able to make accusations of falsehoods cloaked in anonymity.

I rely on the accounts and sequence given in the Guerin Report. We know the identity of the author of that Report.

411 people were imprisoned in 2013 for failing to pay District Court imposed fines fir non payment of TV licences. The figures are available. Each case involved a team of Gardai arresting the unfortunate people and bringing them to prison. Would that so much conscientiousness could be exercised in other areas of law enforcement.

The is a curiously and repeatedly accusatory tone to your emails. It detracts from the points which yiu are attempting to make but O allow fir the adversarial and highly aggressive nature of criminal lawyers.

It is sad to observe your discourtesy, Throwaway, in referring to a murder victim by her first name. O offered you the opportunity to correct that but as with former Minister Shatter, adversarial people find it difficult to reside from their expressions.

The Throwaway is any interesting name. What inspired it? There is a throwaway and careless quality to your insults.

As I’ve said before, my every post has been correcting what you have wrongly or inaccurately stated. Nothing more or less.

It is unfortunately your personal issue that you take insult to that as I have not once ‘name called’, derided, abused or insinuated any form of malice towards you. Nor have I attempted to deviate you from your beliefs on the Gardai (or wider Criminal Justice system).

Ill repeat myself again; it’s clear you have a zeal for these issues. It’s unfortunate that where you have been informed that you are wrong, that you refuse to listen and instead continue on a blissful ignorance.

There is not much that will change your opinion if you are prepared to accept you world view as the only world view. Where I have corrected you has not been on matters of opinion but on procedure.

I wish you the best in your new commission (for want of a more appropriate name on my part) and your further endeavours. I only hope that if you do take to the services of one of my colleagues that you listen better to them than you have done to I. As I assure you, they will state the same correction in procedure as I have informed to you.

The Throwaway is a me,her of An Garda Siochana and has a vested interest in seeking to distract. Yes, the Thowaway professes to be a legal expert in Criminal law but his knowledge is one of criminal law procedures from the perspective of An Garda Siochana.

His objectivity is undermined by his position as a Garda, one of a different mould to the honourable and principled Sergeant McCabe.

Read the section of the article above “communication back and forth to Cavan” which outlines the correct sequence based on the Guerin Report.

The Guerin Report is impressive and it shows the precise sequence of events. There was a clear failure by an Garda Siochana fully to appraise the District Justice at the hearing in Virginia of all of the material facts.

Let us not ignore the fact that An Garda Siochana allowed station bail to Jerry McGrath.

Jim, your link refers to the Limerick Court Hearing before DJ Tom O’Donnell not the Cavan case of the severely injured female taxi driver. The serious and life threatening assault of a female taxi driver should not have resulted in station bail.

Even in Limerick, the full facts were not disclosed to the Judge.

Jerry McGrath enjoyed exceptional leniency, courtesy of An Garda Siochana.

It seems easier to imprison TV licence fine defaulters than some violent defenders. We need to get our priorities right. Of course, the sad and avoidable murder of Sylvia Roche was by no means an isolated case.