Former DPP warns against early banking inquiry ahead of potential criminal trials - RTÉ News
Former DPP James Hamilton is by no means an apparatchik. When he says trials must take place before the banker baddies can come before an Oireachtas inquiry because a jury would be prejudiced by the coverage of TDs and Senators reacting to testimony brought before them, he must be taken seriously.
The Government is currently considering the terms under which an Oireachtas inquiry can take place. It is likely that a referendum will be needed and we may even be asked a second time to consider the amendment we rejected last year.
While it is right and proper for our elected representatives to find how and why our economy collapsed, they would not be allowed to attribute blame within the inquiry. But to constrain the public - and its representatives - from commenting on proceedings in the public domain would be impossible.
So there is a real danger that anyone who had committed a criminal offence (which is moot) would plead inability to get a fair trial.
It seems we're back in Tribunal-land again - and the most important lesson has not been learned.
Namely, that better-resourced criminal investigation teams, backed with more robust powers of investigation are needed to get to the root of white-collar crime fast.
So if we are to have referendum on Oireachtas inquiries, then it would make sense to deal with some of the difficulties a banking inquiry will create.
We already have non-jury trials for terrorism and organised crime cases - and many people would regard our economic collapse as the greatest organised criminal enterprise ever perpetrated in this State.
So wouldn't it makes sense to have a non-jury court for financial trials to be heard by experts? That way there would be no issue over prejudiced jurors. A normal judicial court could decide on sentencing based on the findings and perhaps recommendations of the special court.
This would presumably mean a referendum. But if we're having one anyway, sure, make it a double.
Former DPP James Hamilton is by no means an apparatchik. When he says trials must take place before the banker baddies can come before an Oireachtas inquiry because a jury would be prejudiced by the coverage of TDs and Senators reacting to testimony brought before them, he must be taken seriously.
The Government is currently considering the terms under which an Oireachtas inquiry can take place. It is likely that a referendum will be needed and we may even be asked a second time to consider the amendment we rejected last year.
While it is right and proper for our elected representatives to find how and why our economy collapsed, they would not be allowed to attribute blame within the inquiry. But to constrain the public - and its representatives - from commenting on proceedings in the public domain would be impossible.
So there is a real danger that anyone who had committed a criminal offence (which is moot) would plead inability to get a fair trial.
It seems we're back in Tribunal-land again - and the most important lesson has not been learned.
Namely, that better-resourced criminal investigation teams, backed with more robust powers of investigation are needed to get to the root of white-collar crime fast.
So if we are to have referendum on Oireachtas inquiries, then it would make sense to deal with some of the difficulties a banking inquiry will create.
We already have non-jury trials for terrorism and organised crime cases - and many people would regard our economic collapse as the greatest organised criminal enterprise ever perpetrated in this State.
So wouldn't it makes sense to have a non-jury court for financial trials to be heard by experts? That way there would be no issue over prejudiced jurors. A normal judicial court could decide on sentencing based on the findings and perhaps recommendations of the special court.
This would presumably mean a referendum. But if we're having one anyway, sure, make it a double.
No comments:
Post a Comment