Judicial – Public Inquiry

A Woulfe in judges clothing

By Anthony Sheridan

Ok, let’s get the obvious truth out in the open – Seamus Woulfe is a dud judge. He’s not fit to judge a dog show never mind sit in judgement in the highest court in the land. [With sincere apologies to all dog show judges.]

We only have to look at some of his judgements surrounding Golfgate to see how unfit he is to hold such a high position. As a Supreme Court judge he felt it was acceptable to:

Party with politicians.

Break Covid 19 rules he had helped draw up.

Blame everybody else for the consequences of his bad judgements.

Furthermore, it is clear that his overweening arrogance has completely blinded him to the core reality surrounding his behaviour – the obvious requirement for his immediate resignation.

In addition to all this he has completely misread the clear signals encouraging him to take the honourable course of falling on his sword.

The first signal came from retired Supreme Court judge Susan Denham’s report when she found it would be unjust and disproportionate to call for his resignation. The key words here are ‘to call for’. Anyone not overwhelmed by their own self importance would have clearly understood the subtle message – wield the sword yourself.

Clearly, Judge Woulfe does not do subtlety so a second signal was necessary.

This occurred when the Judicial Council released the entire transcript of Woulfe’s first interview with Ms. justice Denham. This unprecedented public washing of judicial dirty laundry had the entire country cringing in embarrassment at the bizarre and abject excuses proffered by justice Woulfe.

Everybody, that is, except Woulfe himself. He seems to be genuinely puzzled by the angry response of politicians, colleagues in the judiciary and the general public.

It was time to call in the heavy gang, so to speak. Three senior judges met with Mr. Justice Woulfe to discuss how the matter could be resolved. It has been reported that the meeting did not go well, that Woulfe was shocked by the proposals they were offering to resolve the matter.

Did not go well, is, without doubt, the understatement of the year.

It is highly likely that the judges [metaphorically of course] took Woulfe by the throat, pinned him up against a wall and shouted in his face:

Resign you fool before you do any more damage to our reputation.

But still, the thickness of his skull prevented the message from getting through. Instead of recognising the brutal fact that his Supreme Court career is over, Woulfe decided to call in sick.

There is now no way back for justice Woulfe nor, indeed, the judiciary. All the dirty laundry is out there. If he is not removed or forced to resign the reputational damage to the judiciary will be enormous and permanent.

And Mr. Justice Woulfe will not primarily be responsible for that damage. His complete lack of understanding of the responsibilities and propriety expected of a Supreme Court judge has earned him a gold plated fools pass.

No, responsibility lies with the judiciary and the mainstream political parties who, over the decades, formed a relationship so close it left no room for the accountbility that is the norm in other jurisdictions.

It was inevitable, sooner or later, that a Woulfe in judges clothing would gain entry and wreak the havoc we are now witnessing.

Presumption of innocence does not universally apply in Ireland

By Anthony Sheridan

During a discussion on Today with Sean O’Rourke surrounding the controversial bail granted to a taxi driver accused of sexual assault Senior Counsel and lecturer in Law at UCD Paul Anthony McDermott was crystal clear:

We have the concept of bail because of the presumption of innocence. Under our system nobody can decide you have committed a crime other than the jury. So, not the media, not the Gardai, not anyone. It is only a jury.
So we take the view that unless and until twelve members of the public decide you have committed a crime the system works on the basis that you didn’t commit it.
That is regarded as a constitutional right but even if we amended the constitution in the morning the European Convention on Human Rights to which Ireland is a party also requires a presumption of innocence.

I’m sure Mr. McDermott will be greatly surprised to learn that his statement is incorrect.

The Irish state does not universally extend the presumption of innocence to its citizens.

There is one very specific crime that the State considers to be so heinous that those found guilty are not just liable to a prison sentence of ten years or a €300,000 fine but are also deprived of the presumption of innocence principle.

That crime is the selling of even one Mass card without the written permission of a Catholic bishop.

There are many who will find it difficult to believe that such a law could exist in a modern democratic republic; so here it is in black and white.

Charities Act 2009
99: [1] A person who sells a Mass card other than pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person shall be guilty of an offence.
[2] In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities, that the sale of the Mass card to which the alleged offence relates was not done pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person.

I am not a legal person so I am open to challenge on my interpretation of this law; which is:

A person who sells a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop will be presumed guilty until he/she can prove the contrary.

The crux of the presumption of innocence principle is very straighforward:

It is not for the accused to establish his/her innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

Article 99 [1] turns this principle on its head.

Therefore; in Ireland:

The presumption of innocence that is implicit in Article 31.1 of the Irish Constitution does not apply to those accused of this crime.

The presumption of innocence under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights does not apply to those accused of this crime.

The presumption of innocence under Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not apply to those accused of this crime.

To my knowledge nobody from the legal profession has challenged this draconian law so it is reasonable to assume that, for that profession, there is no difficulty.

It is, however, reasonable to expect members of the legal profession such as Mr. McDermott to include this exemption to the presumption of innocence principle when delivering an opinion on the issue.

Copy to:

Mr. McDermott

Today with Sean O’Rourke

No law for the powerful, strict enforcement for decent citizens

By Anthony Sheridan

David Aminu committed a crime by defrauding the Department of Social Welfare of €136,000 in welfare payments. The crime came to light in 2015 when Mr. Aminu wrote to the Dept. admitting his crime and offered to repay the stolen funds. An immediate Garda investigation was launched as a result of the confession. Mr. Aminu was charged, found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison.

Mr. Aminu’s defence pleaded that he had confessed, was repaying the stolen funds and was unlikely to reoffend. It was also pointed out to the judge that if Mr. Aminu were sent to jail he would face automatic deportation on his release with serious consequences for his wife and family.

None of this cut any mustard with the judge. Accepting that Aminu was a good man, that there would be long-term consequences for him and his family if a jail term was imposed and that the only aggravating factor was the actual crime the judge nevertheless took a stern and very narrow view.

Aminu must suffer a term of imprisonment to punish him and deter others.

Although this is an extremely harsh judgement it is, nevertheless, the law and in all functional democracies the law must be upheld and equally applied.

Unfortunately, Ireland is not a functional democracy and, as a consequence, justice like that meted out to Mr. Aminu is strictly reserved for ordinary citizens.

Those with power and influence are seldom subject to the law and can do pretty much as they please.

Here are just some recent examples of how those with power and influence get away with serious criminality.

On the same day that Mr. Aminu’s case was reported the Central Bank revealed that banks were admitting to thousands of additional cases of criminally defrauding those on tracker mortgages. The number of victims of this criminality has now reached over 30,000. People have lost their homes, their savings and some, it is thought, their lives. The Central Bank knew what was going on and did nothing; it’s still, effectively, protecting the criminal bankers. There have been no arrests, no charges, no justice.

Senior civil servants are also protected by the state when they commit crimes, even when they openly admit guilt. Senior staff at the Office of Corporate Enforcement (the grandiose title always makes me laugh) responsible for the collapse of the Sean Fitzpatrick trial perverted the course of justice by deliberately destroying evidence and coaching witnesses. In functional democracies such crimes are taken very seriously. In Ireland there were no charges, no trial, the guilty were protected by the state.

For 20 years now there has been an avalanche of criminality spewing from the ranks of our police force, we have yet to see a police officer on trial. Just recently, the most senior police officer in the state decided that no charges would be brought against any member of his force who were found to have falsified up to a million breath tests. The police chief said he was not prepared to spend huge amounts of taxpayers’ money on the scandal, that the money would be better spent on ‘protecting the community’ – from ordinary criminals like Mr. Aminu presumably.

Predictably, there was no objection to this banana republic abuse of law enforcement from politicians or, indeed, judges.

And then, of course, there’s the criminal politicians who, over the decades, have been defrauding the state through false expenses claims and robbing citizens money by stealing food and drink in the Dail bar and restaurant. Irish citizens won’t even be allowed to pass election judgement on these criminal politicians because, incredibly, data laws protect their identities.

Just think about that, we live in a country where public representatives can openly rob citizen’s money and property with complete impunity and we’re not even allowed to know their names never mind throw them in jail.

For so long as our country is misgoverned and exploited by a corrupt ruling elite we will rarely witness a judge say that a banker, police officer, government official or politician should be jailed

I suspect that when Mr. Aminu sat down to write his letter of confession he was not aware that in Ireland there is no law for the rich and powerful and strict enforcement for ordinary decent citizens.

I also suspect that if he knew the truth he would have burned that letter.

Copy to:

Senator Craughwell (Independent)

I’m copying this article to Senator Craughwell in the hope it might help to inform him of the reality of corruption in Ireland. From a number of twitter conversations it is clear that the senator has little idea of how the disease of corruption is destroying the lives of countless thousands of Irish citizens.

State failing in its duty to enforce law

By Anthony Sheridan

The following very serious allegations of criminal activity emerged during the recent Sean Fitzpatrick trial.

The deliberate destruction of evidence.

The coaching of witnesses.

The altering of witness statements.

The former solicitor for the Office of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), Mr. Kevin O’Connell has admitted that he destroyed evidence.

It has been accepted by the current Director of ODCE, Mr. Ian Drennan, that senior members of his staff participated in the coaching of witnesses and the altering of witness statements. It has also been acknowledged that the former Director of ODCE, Mr. Paul Appleby was involved in some of these activities.

The following three facts also emerged during the Sean Fitzpatrick trial.

One: That Garda Chief Superintendent Patrick Lordan, head of the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau was aware that solicitor with the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), Mr. Kevin O’Connell, had admitted in sworn evidence that he had destroyed documents relevant to the criminal proceedings against Sean Fitzpatrick.

Two: That Supt. Lordan, after discussing the alleged crime with a colleague deemed it was not necessary to launch a Garda investigation.

Three: That the whole issue (the destruction of evidence) was outlined to Judge Mary Ellen Ring and she did not indicate that any issue should be raised with the Garda.

To my knowledge Garda officers do not have the power to decide whether or not an alleged crime should or should not be investigated. To my knowledge such decisions come strictly within the remit of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is deeply disturbing that a judge, on being informed that evidence in a criminal trial had been deliberately destroyed, would not instruct the Gardai to investigate the matter.

It seems clear to me that the law enforcement agencies of the State are failing to act in an appropriate manner in response to the alleged crimes as outlined above.

With that in mind I have submitted the following complaints:

One:

Formal complaint submitted to Cobh Gardai on 10 July concerning the alleged crimes of ODCE solicitor Mr. Kevin O’Connell and other staff members of the ODCE.

Formal Complaint

I wish to formally report the following allegations of criminal activity that emerged during the course of the trial of the former chairman of Anglo Irish Bank, Sean Fitzpatrick.

One: That the former solicitor for the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), Mr. Kevin O’Connell, contrary to law, deliberately destroyed documents that were relevant evidence in a criminal trial.

Two: That, contrary to law, witnesses were coached and statements altered by Mr. O’Connell and other senior civilian ODCE staff which resulted in the contamination of evidence.

Both of the above allegations have been accepted as true by Mr. O’Connell and the Director of ODCE, Ian Drennan.

(See attached ODCE press release).

Signed……………………………………………………………………

Anthony Sheridan

Two:

Formal complaint submitted to the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) against Chief Supt. Lordan concerning his decision not to investigate the destruction of evidence in a criminal trial.

11 July 2017

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find complaint against Garda Chief Superintendent Patrick Lordan, head of the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau, for failing to properly carry out his duty on coming into possession of significant evidence of criminal activity.

This complaint is based on a report in the Irish Times dated 23 May 2017 reporting on the trial of former chairman of Anglo Irish Bank, Mr. Sean Fitzpatrick (The full report is included below).

Specifically, the complaint is based on the following facts arising in the report.

One: That Chief superintendent Lordan was aware that solicitor with the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), Mr. Kevin O’Connell, had admitted in sworn evidence that he had destroyed documents relevant to the criminal proceedings against Sean Fitzpatrick.

Two: That Chief Superintendent Lordan wrongly took it upon himself not to investigate the illegal destruction of said documents.

Signed……………………………..

Anthony Sheridan

Note: It was my intention to make a formal complaint against Judge Mary Ellen Ring for her failure to act on being informed about the destruction of evidence. Unfortunately, it seems there is no authority in Ireland to which citizens can make complaints regarding the actions of judges.

Copy to:

ODCE

Dept. of jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

Media

Fitzpatrick decision: A Banana Republic decision

By Anthony Sheridan

If I was an establishment judge and wanted to make a questionable and disgraceful decision that would damage my country and its people I would announce my decision the day after a major international act of terrorism.

If I was an establishment politician responsible for setting up a law enforcement agency with a mandate to bring white-collar criminals to justice but who were also friends of my political class I would ensure that the agency was starved of funds, starved of effective legislation and led by compliant staff who were willing to operate under political instruction.

Dolores O’Riordan judgement a disgrace

By Anthony Sheridan

The decision by judge Patrick Durkan to allow Cranberries singer Dolores O’Riordan buy her way out of a criminal offence is a disgrace.

First, let’s look at the offences committed by O’Riordan.

Caused a disturbance on an Aer Lingus flight including stepping on the foot of a flight attendant.

Assaulted two members of the airport police at Shannon.

Obstructed a police officer in the execution of his duty.

Escaped from police custody.

Headbutted and spat in the face of a policeman.

Falsely accused police officers of sexual assault.

These are very serious offences and would normally result in a conviction and probably a prison sentence. The judge had three options:

Acquit her on the grounds that she was suffering from a mental illness at the time.

Find her guilty and impose an appropriate sentence.

Let her off completely but make it look respectable under the cloak of the court poor box charade.

By letting her off the judge lessens respect for the law and increases the suspicion that the court poor box is nothing more than a mechanism under which those with influence can avoid the consequences of having a criminal record.

The judge is reported as saying that O’Riordan was treated in exactly the same way as any other member of the public but then went on to completely contradict that claim by saying:

Because she is a public figure, she not only had to deal with any sentence or sanction that the court imposed but also one that the public would impose.

This means, in effect, that public figures are entitled to greater leniency simply because they are public figures.

In my opinion O’Riordan should have been found guilty, fined €6,000 and told to get on with living with the reality of having a criminal record, just like ordinary people have to.

The court poor box perversion should be discontinued before it does any more damage to the standing of the law.

O'Brien repeats serious allegation against judiciary

On Thursday last I wrote about Denis O’Brien’s extremely serious allegation that the judiciary had put a ring of steel around Justice Moriarty because they knew he was never up to the job.

During an interview with Pat Kenny (Friday) O’Brien initially seemed to withdraw the allegation when Kenny suggested it would be an appalling vista if the entire judiciary were to collude against one man.

O’Brien said:

You’ve got to separate the wider judiciary from Justice Moriarty. I believe I was stitched by Justice Moriarty but I’m not in any way critical of the wider judicial community.

It’s a measure of O’Brien’s lack of mental coordination that, minutes later, he repeated the allegation when Kenny again suggested he take his case to the courts.

O’Brien:

Look, do you know a lot about the legal profession, the judiciary and the Law Society. There’s a code amongst them all that they don’t take each other on, they don’t criticise each other.

And:

There’s a ring of steel around Moriarty because they knew, the judiciary knew, that he was never up to the job, he’s a Circuit Court judge.

As I wrote on Thursday, in a real democracy with proper law enforcement O’Brien would by now find himself before a judge explaining his accusations.

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has responded to the hysterical rants of O’Brien and Lowry regarding Justice Moriarty and the judiciary in general saying:

Statements which endanger public confidence in our judiciary and in our courts are entirely unacceptable and are to be deplored.

Legal expert Professor Gerry Whyte of Trinity Law School said that if criticism of the judiciary went so far as to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice then we’re talking about an offence called scandalising the court.

If Minister Shatter genuinely thinks the comments are unacceptable then he should immediately initiate proceedings against O’Brien and Lowry.

One law for rich and powerful

Letter in this morning’s Irish Independent.

One law for rich and powerful

NOT surprisingly, the fugitive solicitor Michael Lynn has refused to return to Ireland to give evidence in a High Court case (Irish Independent, September 20).

How touching, therefore, to see State and legal authorities facilitating this fugitive in tying up loose ends from his previous work by providing a video link from his bolt hole somewhere in London.

It is, however, puzzling to us ordinary folk how the State can make such arrangements with this man and yet seem totally incapable of taking the necessary action that would make him accountable for the very serious allegations he is facing.

Perhaps those same authorities could arrange an annual two-week amnesty for Mr Lynn so that he could return home and nostalgically breathe in the air of a country where the level of accountability apparently depends on one’s profession and standing in society.

Anthony Sheridan

Different people, different justice

November 2nd: Seven men arrested for alleged attempted robbery.

Three days later:

November 5th: Men hauled before court under armed guard to receive justice.

Sum involved: €1.2 million.

October 15th: Story breaks of solicitor allegedly involved in massive property fraud.

Twenty days later:

November 3rd: Judge is considering whether such matters might warrant investigation by those charged with criminal law.

Sum involved: At least €70 million.

The law outside the law?

Yet another solicitor is under scrutiny for allegedly robbing his clients. Michael Lynn, solicitor and property developer is under investigation by the Law Society for what they sheepishly describe as ‘acts of dishonesty’ possibly involving millions of euros.

On Liveline last Thursday (18th Oct.) a caller related how his mother and father were robbed by another solicitor, a case that demonstrates just how well protected this privileged group is from real justice.

In 1981, the couple bought a property in Nassau Street Dublin. Unfortunately, they employed a corrupt solicitor by the name of Johnathan Brooks.

He never disclosed to them that he was the owner of the property and on the day they bought the property Brooks changed the leases on the two shops on the ground floor so that they reverted to him after a number of years. This crooked solicitor also robbed the registration and stamp duty on the property.

When the corruption was discovered in 1985 a complaint was made to the Law Society but they didn’t want to know. This is not unusual behaviour for this august body.

After over a year of stalling the matter eventually came before the disciplinary committee of the High Court. This court has the power to strike off a solicitor.

The caller related how badly he was treated by the three sitting judges and claimed that they were sitting in judgement of him rather than the corrupt solicitor. Eventually, Brooks admitted that he had ‘forgotten to do the paperwork’. (A case of tribunalitis?).

He assured the judges that he had paid all the fines, settled with Revenue and stamped all the deeds. The learned gentlemen never asked for proof of these claims and some years later the caller discovered that Brooks had lied to the court.

In all, Brooks robbed about €15 million from clients in his short criminal career, he committed suicide in 1992.

Joe Duffy naively asked about reimbursement for the victims of this rogue solicitor from the Law Society. In fact, the Law Society did everything they could to keep this very valuable property for themselves. It was only when they were threatened with the High Court and given a sum of money that they relented.

It took this family 24 years to get what was rightfully theirs back from this criminal solicitor and the greed of the Law Society. The caller said that of about 100 solicitors he had dealt with in his life, only about five were honest – he’s lucky.

He also said that solicitors should be put in stocks and pelted with rotten vegetables – I agree.