Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE JURY IN the Graham Dwyer trial had a tough job listening to nine weeks of evidence.
However, for good reason, the jury were not privy to all the court’s proceedings.
Under the law, while a trial is ongoing, nothing heard in court while the jury is absent can be reported.
From day one, following the explosive text messages being read out in court, it was clear this was going to be a trial like none other. However, other aspects, including some incidents which occurred in the jury’s absence, also made this a most unusual set of proceedings.
Public gallery
On 20 January 2015, a woman standing in the public gallery was brought to the attention of the judge.
Justice Tony Hunt, presiding over the trial, said that he had been waiting for someone to raise the matter that the woman’s behaviour in court was inappropriate.
He said he had noticed her behaviour in the first half of the day. She had been seen smiling, seemingly entertained, through some segments of the proceedings.
The prosecution told the court that the woman had attached an “unhealthy relationship” to the trial.
Justice Hunt asked the woman be removed from the court by gardaí and said she was banned from attending the court case from then on.
It is believed that while in custody at Cloverhill Prison for the past 18 months, Graham Dwyer has received many letters from women who have an interest in him.
The blog
On another occasion, in the absence of the jury, the matter of a .com blog was brought to the attention of the court. The court was told that the blog, which included YouTube clips and opinions, speculated on the innocence or guilt of Graham Dwyer.
The court was told it could be highly damaging to the case. The judge was told that it amounted to criminal contempt and breached court reporting rules.
A garda detective told the judge that as recent as that morning, comments were being made on the blog in relation to the trial. The judge was told that Google had put restrictions on the site, following instructions from the gardaí. The detective said that it was still accessible through the website and possibly YouTube.
The judge asked that the person responsible for the blog to come before the court. The gardaí located the man, a Dutch national, who claimed that he was a journalist.
The judge addressed him in court and stated that perhaps, as he is not of this jurisdiction, he was unaware of Irish law in respect to court reporting.
“What’s the problem here?” asked the man.
The man claimed it was a matter of freedom of speech. Judge Hunt said he had no interest as to what the laws were in the Netherlands, but said he was in the Irish jurisdiction now.
The man replied that he had studied the Irish Constitution and he didn’t think he had broken the law.
“It is forbidden to report any proceedings in the absence of the jury,” explained the judge. He then asked if he understood. The man said he was not sure that he did.
“Don’t play the innocent man with me,” said Justice Hunt, who said the man was capable in writing on his blog in the English language and he had no doubt he could understand him.
Court reporting
The judge said he was not getting into an argument with the man on the law, but said that strict media guidelines were in place for a reason.
The judge said that he should remove the content from the site. The man would not make a decision.
“I’ll tell you what, wait here in the court until 2pm, meditate on the matter,” said the judge.
After lunch the man continued to question the judge. Justice Hunt said that perhaps he should consult his “fellow colleagues” on the law, referring to the media present in the court.
“Take it down and don’t do it again,” said Judge Hunt, adding, “I am trying to be fair to you”.
If you want to do business here, you have to follow the rules. I call the shots here.
He gave him until Monday to remove the content, otherwise other measures would be considered.
The man then asked Justice Hunt questions about the law. “No, get your own legal advice,” said the judge.
“I’m simply a civil servant in fancy dress,” said Justice Hunt.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I’d love one to drive home after the night shift, I could have a quick snooze and “hopefully” I won’t kill anyone.
Father Ted had one years ago!
*Tesla
People kill and injure thousands of other people each year on the worlds roads- computers are bound to do better-
always a good day when you dont hit someone.
Except for the Micra / Yaris driver who takes half an hour to go round a corner
Perhaps it might stop them savages from running down people at bus stops and then choping the injured with and ax!
Fingers crossed, be grand they said……
rise of the machines
this is awesome. My next car will be a Tesla.
Honestly I don’t see how one of these vehicles could be better than a competent driver. They’re susceptible to all kinds of software and hardware issues which could cause fatal accidents and they could be vulnerable to unsolicited electronic access. Not to mention the fact that cars will become much more expensive to manufacture and maintain as a result.
I think in theory it’s a good idea but in practice it will fail.
ya gotta start somewhere. otherwise progress will never be made!
“a motorised carriage fuelled by highly combustible liquid!? I think in theory it’s a good idea but in practice it will fail.” – Some dude, circa 1900
You can’t see how because you don’t know the first thing about machine learning. Google ‘s cars are already safer than competent drivers.
Why would cars that don’t need steering wheels and peddles be more expensive?
I’m pretty sure a full suite of computers, sensors and AI programming are more expensive than a steering wheel and a couple of peddles Jake.
Hólec, for every one design out there that succeeds there’s a ton more that fail. How are those flying car designs which were supposed to revolutionise travel coming along? Hell even jetpacks were toted as the personal transport revolution and promptly dropped.
Jason, open up to the spirit of endeavour.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
“I’m pretty sure a full suite of computers, sensors and AI programming are more expensive than a steering wheel and a couple of peddles Jake”
So Tesla uses a system of radar and cameras. They’re not that expensive. They were included with all of their models and did not increase the price of the car. Tesla will be selling a $35K model starting next year and it too will include the radar and cameras.
Then there is the fact that Tesla’s are electric cars and cost fukc all to run compared to an ICE.
As for computers, cars already have on-board computers and have since the 1980s. The biggest problem facing manufacturers of self-driving cars is the software, not hardware.
‘They’re susceptible to all kinds of software and hardware issues which could cause fatal accidents and they could be vulnerable to unsolicited electronic access.’
You could say the same of human drivers.
Another one of these cars that Feds could switch off remotely and lock you in side or worse again crash it into something.
Michael Hastings, ‘Rolling Stone’ Contributor,died at the age of 33
Denmark is slowly retreating from some of its most ambitious, self-regarding climate initiatives. In an unforeseen attack of common sense, the government is readying to end its generous tax breaks for citizens who buy low-carbon vehicles because of the expense imposed on the public purse.
This will triple the retail price of electric cars like the popular Tesla (Model X pictured above) and remove their competitive price advantage against standard fossil fuel-powered models.
A draft budget proposed last week would extend an existing 180 per cent automobile tax to electric vehicles and place their pricing alongside all other standard competitors.
HT Simon Kent Breitbart
To be honest, I’m glad they’re pulling support for electrical vehicles. Evidence has shown that the production processes involved in making these electrical cars is even worse for the environment than standard hydrocarbon vehicles. That and they still contribute negatively to CO2 emissions unless the entire grid is powered by sustainable fuels (which almost nobody has achieved).
The only vehicles that stand a reasonable chance of having a positive effect are hydrogen cars and even then the production process for hydrogen fuel requires gas.
This is what the Chinese get from all this green nonsense, just one on the many many articles on this pollution available http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/28/article-1350811-0CF36063000005DC-625_634x286.jpg
I wish I was a kid again so that when I grew up I coud be like Elon Musk.
I’m honestly more concerned about it ‘self-parking’ itself into the side of the Ferrari or the Porsche that my neighbours in the garage drive than it hitting a person.
Try not parking it in your neighbours garage.
With increased interest in autonomous vehicles – everyone and their mother seems to be looking into autonomous driving – at what point do pedestrians themselves become responsible for crossing a road out side of pedestrian/zebra crossings. No matter how good software and sensor arrays get they can’t predict or be responsible for stupidity.
They can predict about as well as a human diver and react far far quicker
And they’re unlikely to down ten pints, smoke an ounce of weed before attempting to drive home.
did he not launch these on the Simpsons a few months back
have your say