Double standards ...

Why is this guy not getting jail for a €1.5m fraud when people who don't pay TV licences do? Why did nobody go to court for double charging vulnerable individuals in the redress cases? Instead they faced 'disciplinary' proceedings - self regulation. Great talk about political reform - this reform should be extended to the legal profession too.
___________________________________
Solicitor 'plundered' €1.5m bound for charity
Monday, 28 February 2011

The Commercial Court has granted judgment of more than €1.5m in favour of the Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin arising from the misappropriation of funds by a Dublin solicitor.

Ruairí Ó Ceallaigh - Practice has been wound up by the High Court

Solicitor bought house from client's estate
The Commercial Court has granted judgment of more than €1.5m in favour of the Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin arising from the misappropriation of funds by a Dublin solicitor.

Ruairí Ó Ceallaigh used the money from the estate of a deceased client that had been left to the Archbishop for charitable use.

At the Commercial Court this morning, Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he had 'plundered' money bound for charity.

He said the fact that Ruairí Ó Ceallaigh had admitted the fraud was about the only thing that stood in his favour.

He said Dónal Ó Súilleabháin, from from Bulloch Harbour in Dalkey and who died in July 2006, was clearly a charitable man who was attached to his church, as he left almost all of his estate to the Catholic Church under various headings.

Mr Ó Súilleabháin left €75,000 to Archbishop Martin, as well as a further €1.5m for the Archbishop to use for charitable purposes, but only €55,000 was paid.

The judge said the dishonesty was unattractive on three fronts: it was a breach of a client's trust, it involved charitable funds and it was an act of dishonesty by a solicitor.

He said solicitors had very important standing in the law based on trust and when this is the subject of 'this sort of treachery' it gives rise to very grave concern.

A solicitor for Ruairí Ó Ceallaigh said he wished to tender his apology and admitted responsibility. He also consented to judgment for €1.5m.

Ruairí Ó Ceallaigh, who has been suspended by the Law Society and whose practice has been wound up by the High Court, is believed to have used the money to buy two properties.

The Archbishop has also taken an action against his brother and partner Cormac Ó Ceallaigh.

The court was told that Cormac Ó Ceallaigh was 'entirely innocent' and was seeking an adjournment of proceedings against him.

Lawyers for the Archbishop said while they were not claiming that Cormac Ó Ceallaigh had any involvement, as a partner in the firm he was liable for the wrongful act of his partner.

He also had a duty of care as executor of Mr Ó Súilleabháin's estate.

The court heard that Cormac Ó Ceallaigh is to seek indemnity from the Solicitors' Defence Fund and granted a four-week adjournment.

Commercial Court is civil court, not criminal.

Dublin Archdiocese needs to press a criminal complaint, and hand all their evidence over to Gardai/DPP. Then they build a case and bring it to trial in the criminal courts.

Also worth remembering the burden of proof is higher for criminal courts.

Civil matters are decided on the balance of probabilities (i.e. if the judge decides is 51% likely you did it, then you lose), but in criminal court the defendant must be guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" (i.e. must be 99.9% certain they did it).

Personally, I hope that the Archdiocese push for criminal charges against this guy. Seeing as he's admitted his guilt in civil court it should (in theory) be easy to get a criminal conviction against him.

black&white wrote:Seeing as he's admitted his guilt in civil court it should (in theory) be easy to get a criminal conviction against him.

Exactly ... but it never happens ....

Disgraceful actions by this Solicitor and these are the sort of scum who bring down the name of the profession. If all said in the Article is true the man is a criminal and deserves to be jailed for his actions. The judge directed the case files be sent to the DPP only last October and given how slow the Criminal process is there is no reason to believe that charges won't be brought against this man.

One thing in your post I don't agree with Jayo is the comparison with the TV licence crimes. A crime is a crime and pointing to a more serious case where justice was not served doesn't make it any less of a crime. If I punch you in the face and get convicted of assault that has nothing to do with the man who got off with murder.

For the record I think a sentence for failure to pay €160 given that it costs something like €2000 a week to imprison someone is complete madness and it should be included in the ESB bill spread out over the year to ensure payment.

JS - this is not the first case where a solicitor misappropriated clients funds but all that seems to happen is a reprimand or referral to the tootless and self regulating Law Society - or a strike off. I can't recall ever seeing a solicitor jailed. Also the redress board cases that were highlighted on Whineline ended up being sorted out in-house. I don't recall anyone - and there were many - even named and shamed never mind getting sentenced for preying on the most vulnerable people you could imagine.

Jayo Cluxton wrote:JS - this is not the first case where a solicitor misappropriated clients funds but all that seems to happen is a reprimand or referral to the tootless and self regulating Law Society - or a strike off. I can't recall ever seeing a solicitor jailed. Also the redress board cases that were highlighted on Whineline ended up being sorted out in-house. I don't recall anyone - and there were many - even named and shamed never mind getting sentenced for preying on the most vulnerable people you could imagine.

It was my understanding the for a solicitor to be struck off the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal would have to go to the High Court as the Law Soc wouldn't have the power to strike off a solicitor as that would be to exercise the powers reserved for the judiciary. Similarly the HSE can't strike off a doctor.
Surely at this stage the HC would direct that the DPP be notified and requested to bring charges?
It would seem as though external regulation is the way to go, perhaps an Ombudsman for the Legal Profession.. As it is insurance has gone through the roof because of the actions of some members of the Legal Profession and it's plain to be seen that self regulation isn't working..

Very seldom will you see a legal person charged with a crime. Too cosy a circle. The prosecution,DPP's office,Judges etc are all in the legal circle so they wont upset their buddies.

Jayo Cluxton wrote:

black&white wrote:Seeing as he's admitted his guilt in civil court it should (in theory) be easy to get a criminal conviction against him.

Exactly ... but it never happens ....

Worth noting on that point that it's against the ECHR to use information or admissions in a Civil Case in a subsequent Criminal case.. The evidence can't be a rehash of information given in a tribunal and a conviction can't be based on it so an admission in a Civil Court doesn't go any way to helping a criminal investigation, unless of course the accused is happy to make the same admission for the Criminal Court.

Jon just wondering to you believe- So called Verbal statements giving to Gardai should be admissible in a court of law/ or should they be treated not admissable in court of law..

mullins wrote:Jon just wondering to you believe- So called Verbal statements giving to Gardai should be admissible in a court of law/ or should they be treated not admissable in court of law..

I don't get you Mullins what sort of statements? Statements given in a station that aren't recorded you mean? I see no reason that they should be inadmissable.. Statements have to be signed by the accused as far as I know and they don't have to sign it if they don't think it reflects their version of events.

Jonsmith wrote:

mullins wrote:Jon just wondering to you believe- So called Verbal statements giving to Gardai should be admissible in a court of law/ or should they be treated not admissable in court of law..

I don't get you Mullins what sort of statements? Statements given in a station that aren't recorded you mean? I see no reason that they should be inadmissable.. Statements have to be signed by the accused as far as I know and they don't have to sign it if they don't think it reflects their version of events.

Why should statements off the record be accepted The problem with verbal is that the DPP can still admit it,without it being signed..

A verbal statement from when Mullins can you give me an example of what you mean?
Do you mean from what the accused says at the time of arrest? Because any other statement made would be during questioning and so would be on the record..

Jon did you follow that Limerick trial that was held in Dublin-if you did what did you make of it

mullins wrote:Jon did you follow that Limerick trial that was held in Dublin-if you did what did you make of it

Don't know too much about it mullins to be honest. To me it seems as though he was hired to do it and the Guards found out and broke him in questioning. Giving the Guards Rosary Beads to give to the lads mother doesn't seem to be the action of an innocent man and he recounted the murder in a lot of detail in his confession for a man who is now claiming to be innocent.
Now he's using his daughter's sickness to claim that he made a false confession under pressure. I'm not convinced.

That's just my take on things from limited knowledge, I'm sure anyone who would be quicker to question the integrity of the Gardai could easily reach a much different conclusion.

Sometimes - no - a lot of the time - I wonder about our judicial system.

Jayo Cluxton wrote:Sometimes - no - a lot of the time - I wonder about our judicial system.

You need to be recorded on film both planning and committing the crime before an Irish court will convict you of murder.

And even then they'll probably take the soft option and go for manslaughter

It often reminds me of the old episode of Minder where Arthur Daley is on jury duty and spends the programme convincing the other 11 angry men that the clearly guilty defendant is innocent ...

I just think it that the victim gets a raw deal in our system while the accused doesn't .... And I know all about burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty and all that .... Doesn't make it right though ....

The big problem with this case was the jury I think.. They could have went with a majority-Which would presumably have said guilty-but one of the jurors pulled out sick and another had to leave because they had a holiday planned!

The strange thing here is that the people with the power here are 12 (or 10 in this case) average Joes like ourselves... I know the judge will have directed them to the extent to which they can rely on his statements but still.. I really would love to be on a jury for a trial like that just to see what happens in the decision making.

Coroner's Court is not dissimilar - or used to be - there were to be changes not sure if they are in place. Had occasion to attend one a few years back and the evidence was hugely complicated and delivered by medical experts. It was not recognisable English even to the most educated man. 'Jury' was typical - retired Garda, old woman knitting etc. They have to give the verdict and (IMO) gave the wrong verdict despite the Coroner guiding and prompting for a certain verdict. All a bit of a joke really - though not funny if you are personally involved in such a case.

Jonsmith wrote:

mullins wrote:Jon did you follow that Limerick trial that was held in Dublin-if you did what did you make of it

Don't know too much about it mullins to be honest. To me it seems as though he was hired to do it and the Guards found out and broke him in questioning. Giving the Guards Rosary Beads to give to the lads mother doesn't seem to be the action of an innocent man and he recounted the murder in a lot of detail in his confession for a man who is now claiming to be innocent.
Now he's using his daughter's sickness to claim that he made a false confession under pressure. I'm not convinced.

That's just my take on things from limited knowledge, I'm sure anyone who would be quicker to question the integrity of the Gardai could easily reach a much different conclusion.

I would agree with the above without going into the case...I just find it strange in this day and age ,that the Gardai can't seem to gather information in the correct way....

Do do you remember the Fred Flannery case in the 90s..Judge Barr dismissed the Gardai as liars-and the first serial killer in Ireland walked free because the Gardai could not use the correct procedures to gather evidence to prosecute him....

I would imagine in this instance that they have some sort of insider info through informers or putting pressure on someone that they have something on who knows what's going on.
They got a confession from the accused who I read today drew them a map of how and where the crime unfolded. That to me would seem like an open and shut case, bring in an informant and you bring in the whole "cross examination" aspect and perhaps end up losing your informant. The Guards have done nothing wrong here if you ask me.. It's a mixture of the use of the man's sick daughter as an excuse and a jury left two members short.

In relation to Flannery they didn't disclose relevant statements to the defence that would have been favourable to FF's case.. Eagerness to get a conviction but yes inexcusable conduct.

Investigation should be transferred to Donegal. No prob with confession.

Jonsmith wrote:I would imagine in this instance that they have some sort of insider info through informers or putting pressure on someone that they have something on who knows what's going on.
They got a confession from the accused who I read today drew them a map of how and where the crime unfolded. That to me would seem like an open and shut case, bring in an informant and you bring in the whole "cross examination" aspect and perhaps end up losing your informant. The Guards have done nothing wrong here if you ask me.. It's a mixture of the use of the man's sick daughter as an excuse and a jury left two members short.

In relation to Flannery they didn't disclose relevant statements to the defence that would have been favourable to FF's case.. Eagerness to get a conviction but yes inexcusable conduct.

Can the prosecution play back tapes of interviews during a trial...

mullins wrote:

Jonsmith wrote:I would imagine in this instance that they have some sort of insider info through informers or putting pressure on someone that they have something on who knows what's going on.
They got a confession from the accused who I read today drew them a map of how and where the crime unfolded. That to me would seem like an open and shut case, bring in an informant and you bring in the whole "cross examination" aspect and perhaps end up losing your informant. The Guards have done nothing wrong here if you ask me.. It's a mixture of the use of the man's sick daughter as an excuse and a jury left two members short.

In relation to Flannery they didn't disclose relevant statements to the defence that would have been favourable to FF's case.. Eagerness to get a conviction but yes inexcusable conduct.

Can the prosecution play back tapes of interviews during a trial...

I would imagine the tapes are retained and transcripts drawn up and given to the judge and jury.

What do ye make of Denis O'Brien's attack on the judiciary?