Tuesday, May 13, 2008
“A new date for the hearing has not yet been set..”
The trial of Terence Davison, who is charged with the murder of Robert McCartney in January 2005, along with two other men charged with affray in connection to the murder, was postponed yesterday when a defence barrister was “unavoidably delayed at another trial.” Today it was postponed indefinitely “due to legal reasons.” From the Irish Times report
Terence Malachy Davison, 51, was due to face the charge of killing the father-of-two outside a Belfast bar more than 3 years ago.
After an initial 24-hour delay, the trial was scheduled to begin at Belfast
CrimeCrown Court on Tuesday. However, trial judge Lord Justice Higgins said it would no longer proceed as planned. A new date for the hearing has not yet been set.
Which would seem to be an appropriate time for a reminder of a previous post - “Justice is the glue that holds society together.” Update From a new Irish Times report - 14th May
The postponed trial of the man accused of murdering Robert McCartney has been reset for next week, the Courts Service announced tonight.
The [earlier] Irish Times report also notes
Mr McCartney’s five sisters, who, following their brother’s death, took a high-profile campaign as far as the White House in Washington, were in the public gallery as the postponement was announced.
The Belfast man’s fiancee and mother to his two sons, Bridgeen Hagans, was also in court, as was Mr Devine.
Pete Baker @ 03:36 PM
what does “legal reasons” mean?
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 04:20 PMPercy,
Usually means that the defence lawyers are a little bit craftier than the prosecutors.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 04:32 PMMaybe the penny has dropped that the key ‘evidence’ against Mr Davison is a concoction of lies.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 04:46 PMThe assumption of innocence prior to a trial’s conclusion is central to the system of justice throughout these islands and is indeed the very plank upon which it rests. It is for that reason that, between the time a suspect is first charged of a crime and the conclusion of a trial to test that charge, any public comment that might allude to the guilt of a person charged is rightly prohibited to the extent that any such comment might prove to be such as to render a fair trial unlikely and thus lead to a summary dismissal of untested charges.
Public protestations of a defendant’s innocence are rightly not so hampered.
There is already enough snideyness in this post and following comment that breaches this tenet at least in spirit and I would suggest that it now cease.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 05:41 PMRory: yes,you are absolutely right in reminding bloggers of this .....but get a grip on the pomposity!
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 06:06 PMI’m hearing that the trial judge has been removed/excused and that if a new one is not appointed by Friday, the trial will be put back until September.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 06:29 PMThere is no better example of why Ireland must be reunited than this case, Unionists will not say a word about how the law is being manipulated here for political reason, because they understand only to well were they to do so they would have to face the fact that their statelet has little to do with the rule of law.
Before any Republican cheers this decision they should remember that they may be next in line when the UK state manipulates the law and it may not be to their advantage.
Remember a man had his life stolen and his family were denied a man, please?
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 08:10 PM‘what does “legal reasons” mean? ‘
‘Usually means that the defence lawyers are a little bit craftier than the prosecutors. ‘
‘Maybe the penny has dropped that the key ‘evidence’ against Mr Davison is a concoction of lies. ‘
Maybe not enough pounds have dropped. Maybe the penny has dropped, but has yet to be collected. An heroic assumption, is the defendent in receipt of legal aid? regardless.
In the 21st century it is generally agreed amongst zoologists that meanest and filthiest life forms of the class Mammalia are British livestock and Irish lawyers. Sadly, only one is dealt with in a fashion to protect the wider public from further disease and distress.
the other one thrives, and indeed breeds, on the joy, and cash, derived from shitting in the nests of humans.
Baker Bill had a point.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 08:30 PMI think you’ll find the MSM are simply reporting ‘legal reasons’ because any more detail would break an injunction and run the risk of a contempt prosecution.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 09:07 PMThe Judge was presided in a case against Joseph Fitzpatrick during the supergrass era.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 09:31 PMMick hall
Remember a man had his life stolen and his family were denied a man, please?
Presumably Mr Davison’s liberty, never mind his entitlement to a fair trial, is not worthy of consideration?
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 09:45 PMWhat’s this “Belfast Crime Court”?
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 11:18 PMIndeed, BonarLaw.
They’ve corrected the report at the Irish Times.. and I’ve edited the original post accordingly.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 @ 11:28 PM“There is no better example of why Ireland must be reunited than this case”
..... why?
..... So there wouldnt be so many republican factions to get involved in late night drunken brawls in pubs?
..... so there wouldnt be so many cover-ups?
..... so everyone, including elected politicians, would fully cooperate with the police
Rpublicans dont like this case because it exposed the mythologies, exposed the tin pot dictators who rule in many areas, began the process of changing mindsets in nationalist communities and started to force the ‘protectors’ to account.
Freedom isnt about being told what to do by one of your own community.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:27 AMas a matter of interest cynic, which elected politican did’nt coopperate with police??
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 08:26 AMCan someone tell me where the prejudicial inferences are in Pete’s post?
Such could be in contravention of the law. Indeed, at least one Belfast newspaper has already found itself on the wrong side of a specific direction from a judge presiding over another case broadly associated with this one. I have no intention of allowing Slugger to follow such scurrilous behaviour.
I take a very dim view of such malpractice from bloggers or commenters! And yet, for the life me, I can’t see where Pete is supposed to have breached the law.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:22 PMMick,
You’ve totally flummoxed me. Has someone claimed that Pete did something wrong?
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 07:52 PMThere’s an update to the post from the Irish Times
The postponed trial of the man accused of murdering Robert McCartney has been reset for next week, the Courts Service announced tonight.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 09:28 PM
