Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Johnny English on 01 July 2012, 19:20:02
-
... the Irish hit and run driver as we call him hereby for twelve years now. Will he get away with it again? >:(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciaran_Tobin_extradition_case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciaran_Tobin_extradition_case)
-
Both EU countries,cant see why it should be so difficult to extradite him. :-\
-
Both EU countries,cant see why it should be so difficult to extradite him. :-\
No willing... :-\ a Hungarian reporter tried to make an interview with him some years ago but his wife definiately refused as she said "it was an accident" . Whether this word : "accident" can explain everything? Anything happened there all of this was caused by personally him. The responsibility must be taken.
-
Pehaps he has friends in high places ?
Would probably be a different story if he was in the U.K. The U.K. Govt. seems very keen to comply with extradition requests from other countries.Particularily the U.S. :-X
-
I'm sure he has no any "friend" but The High Court of Ireland is shockingly incompetent. :(
-
On what grounds did the Supreme court decide not to uphold his extradition?
-
There is no extraditional agreement between the countries it doesn't mean though that it would be strictly prohibited...Mr Tobin businessman the Court could decide against two died children's father but for a good tax payer. The "justice" and "law" are often not synonyms.
-
On what grounds did the Supreme court decide not to uphold his extradition?
The concluding remarks by Justice Fennelly in this Judgement indicate why;
41. If it is to order the surrender of the respondent to Hungary to serve the sentence of imprisonment which has been imposed on him by the Hungarian Court, this Court must be satisfied that he falls within one of the headings of s. 10 of the Act of 2003, as amended. Only paragraph (d) is capable of applying. It is a condition of the application of that provision that the respondent have “fled." For reasons already given, I am satisfied that he did not “flee.” If the court were to hold otherwise, it would be acting contrary to the clear meaning of the Act of 2003, i.e., contra legem.
42. It follows that his surrender cannot be ordered. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 10 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (amended) states inter alia;
S. 10 of the Act of 2003 gives effect, in Irish law, to the general obligation to surrender made incumbent on Member States, by the Framework Decision. That section, as amended by the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, 2005, provides:
10.—Where a judicial authority in an issuing state duly issues a European arrest warrant in respect of a person—
(a) against whom that state intends to bring proceedings for an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates,
(b) who is the subject of proceedings in that state for an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates,
(c) who has been convicted of, but not yet sentenced in respect of, an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates, or
(d) on whom a sentence of imprisonment or detention has been imposed in respect of an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates, and who fled from the issuing state before he or she—
(i) commenced serving that sentence, or
(ii) completed serving that sentence,
that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Framework Decision, be arrested and surrendered to the issuing state.
When deciding matters embracing (in this case) Statute Law, the wording of any documents, warrants and so on is of critical importance as the eventual outcome of any appeal to the validity of any previous decision made by any other court will rest on the precise wording of the Act under which the appeal is brought.
In this case, irrespective of the apparent ‘injustice’ thought to be evident in the findings of the Irish Supreme Court, the reasoning of Justice Fennelly appears to in keeping with the precise wording of the Act.
Speculation by deciding Judges - as to the weight of the crimes (or actions) of any defendant and how these impinge on the simple scale of humanity or what can reasonably be considered by society to be a basic right or wrong – seldom forms any substantial part of any decision made in such cases: The law, as stated in the wording of the relevant Act or legislation, is the governing factor.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/1073ee973657c17a80256ec4002f18aa/fd7fbd2d0e422eed802573fc005307fe?OpenDocument (http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/1073ee973657c17a80256ec4002f18aa/fd7fbd2d0e422eed802573fc005307fe?OpenDocument)
-
On what grounds did the Supreme court decide not to uphold his extradition?
The concluding remarks by Justice Fennelly in this Judgement indicate why;
41. If it is to order the surrender of the respondent to Hungary to serve the sentence of imprisonment which has been imposed on him by the Hungarian Court, this Court must be satisfied that he falls within one of the headings of s. 10 of the Act of 2003, as amended. Only paragraph (d) is capable of applying. It is a condition of the application of that provision that the respondent have “fled." For reasons already given, I am satisfied that he did not “flee.” If the court were to hold otherwise, it would be acting contrary to the clear meaning of the Act of 2003, i.e., contra legem.
42. It follows that his surrender cannot be ordered. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 10 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (amended) states inter alia;
S. 10 of the Act of 2003 gives effect, in Irish law, to the general obligation to surrender made incumbent on Member States, by the Framework Decision. That section, as amended by the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, 2005, provides:
10.—Where a judicial authority in an issuing state duly issues a European arrest warrant in respect of a person—
(a) against whom that state intends to bring proceedings for an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates,
(b) who is the subject of proceedings in that state for an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates,
(c) who has been convicted of, but not yet sentenced in respect of, an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates, or
(d) on whom a sentence of imprisonment or detention has been imposed in respect of an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates, and who fled from the issuing state before he or she—
(i) commenced serving that sentence, or
(ii) completed serving that sentence,
that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Framework Decision, be arrested and surrendered to the issuing state.
When deciding matters embracing (in this case) Statute Law, the wording of any documents, warrants and so on is of critical importance as the eventual outcome of any appeal to the validity of any previous decision made by any other court will rest on the precise wording of the Act under which the appeal is brought.
In this case, irrespective of the apparent ‘injustice’ thought to be evident in the findings of the Irish Supreme Court, the reasoning of Justice Fennelly appears to in keeping with the precise wording of the Act.
Speculation by deciding Judges - as to the weight of the crimes (or actions) of any defendant and how these impinge on the simple scale of humanity or what can reasonably be considered by society to be a basic right or wrong – seldom forms any substantial part of any decision made in such cases: The law, as stated in the wording of the relevant Act or legislation, is the governing factor.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/1073ee973657c17a80256ec4002f18aa/fd7fbd2d0e422eed802573fc005307fe?OpenDocument (http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/1073ee973657c17a80256ec4002f18aa/fd7fbd2d0e422eed802573fc005307fe?OpenDocument)
Didn't flee? He got the passport after the judgement announcing as the Hun court considered the chance of run away or sin repeating, which were less possible by the opinion of court. He knew the judgement exactly and smoothly did run away...is this not "flee" ? Precise wording of the act haha :'( Precise death of two children >:( As I said above justice and law here aren't synonyms of each other :( :( :(
-
Didn't flee? He got the passport after the judgement announcing as the Hun court considered the chance of run away or sin repeating, which were less possible by the opinion of court. He knew the judgement exactly and smoothly did run away...is this not "flee" ? Precise wording of the act haha :'( Precise death of two children >:( As I said above justice and law here aren't synonyms of each other :( :( :(
justice and law here aren't synonyms of each other
Indeed so Laz and that has been responsible for many people misunderstanding judicial findings in such distressing cases.
It is a necessary element (sadly in many cases) in ensuring that judicial findings are based on the rule of law rather than the capricious or emotive opinions held by those making the judgement.
-
Sad but you're right Den :y only one question remains : what about Tobin's conscious? :o The accident occurred by his own faulty so how can he look into the mirror? Proudly? Sadly? There is a quite strong gup anyway namely that he would take the punishment but his wife, who really love spending money doesn't allow it...well, true or not who knows... :-\
-
this may be an uncivilised sentiment, but would;t it be a crying shame if some hungarian on holiday in ireland accidentally ran him over.
-
Upgrade :
http://ciaran-tobin.blogspot.com/ (http://ciaran-tobin.blogspot.com/)
Mr Tobin returned to Hungary two days ago and started to sit his punishment off.