On 8 Apr, 16:00, "Fergus O'Rourke" wrote:
> Special.Car...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> [snip]> If we say a man has been wrongly convicted, we are also saying
> > directly or by implication that the person(s) responsible for
> > convicting him is either (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt.
>
> [snip]
>
> Non sequitur.
> --
> FERGUS O'ROURKEwww.irish-lawyer.com
> (Not just law stuff)
=================================================
All right; other factors could be in play. For example, Judith Ward,
an English girl, was mentally unstable and had a fixation on Irish
politics and history. She apparently volunteered a vague semblance of
a confession to the motorway coach bombing. But the illustrious Dick
Holland - as usual - had no interest in finding the real bombers, only
in obtaining a conviction.
The major point being made was that if we want to move in the
direction of a fair society with some semblance of justice in the way
we deal with suspected criminals, then we must treat allegations of
corruption against cops as a special case, exempt from libel actions
by the said cops. Otherwise how can we fight effectively to overturn
wrongful convictions?
The Gregg v. O'Gara fiasco has highlighted this dilemma, so perhaps
some good may come of Constable Gregg's behaviour in the end.
================================================= |