★
DAON-PHOBLACHT
CHORCAÍ
Home
baile
Forums
fóraim
Tickets
ceol
Event Guide
Imeachtaí
Street Art
ealaíon sráide
Articles
ailt
Cork Slang
béarlagair
Contact
teagmháil
Shop
siopa
Articles
Cork Slang
Forums
Events
Shop
Search, boy
Order search results by
Date of last reply
Date thread created
Order search results by
Current events
Archive
Home
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Langers Forum
The official NATIONAL court report thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Matlock" data-source="post: 7420972" data-attributes="member: 4732"><p>I don't believe that the search warrant in that case was deliberately allowed to go out of date. You might disagree with that (I am sure that many would) but it doesn't make sense to me. If the guards didn't want to proceed with the prosecution there are easier ways that the absolute public humiliation of an out of date search warrant. </p><p></p><p>The state proceeded to prosecute the case on the basis that the search warrant was valid. </p><p>The warrant was issued at 3.20 pm on May 20, 2002, and the prosecution claimed it was still valid when it was executed at 2.20 pm on May 27. Which it probably was, but because the time was not stated on the face of the warrant it was deemed to be inadmissible as in the absence of a time on the warrant is it deemed to have lapsed at midnight on the 26th. </p><p></p><p>It isn't as if the guards let a warrant go a week (or even a day) out of date, which if they were trying to deliberately fuck up a case would have been the safe way to go. It's not a defence of Curtain, but I don't think that it was as it is often painted. </p><p></p><p>Soundy's notion that a search warrant should or could be issued on the basis of sentencing decisions is ludicrous though.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Matlock, post: 7420972, member: 4732"] I don't believe that the search warrant in that case was deliberately allowed to go out of date. You might disagree with that (I am sure that many would) but it doesn't make sense to me. If the guards didn't want to proceed with the prosecution there are easier ways that the absolute public humiliation of an out of date search warrant. The state proceeded to prosecute the case on the basis that the search warrant was valid. The warrant was issued at 3.20 pm on May 20, 2002, and the prosecution claimed it was still valid when it was executed at 2.20 pm on May 27. Which it probably was, but because the time was not stated on the face of the warrant it was deemed to be inadmissible as in the absence of a time on the warrant is it deemed to have lapsed at midnight on the 26th. It isn't as if the guards let a warrant go a week (or even a day) out of date, which if they were trying to deliberately fuck up a case would have been the safe way to go. It's not a defence of Curtain, but I don't think that it was as it is often painted. Soundy's notion that a search warrant should or could be issued on the basis of sentencing decisions is ludicrous though. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Langers Forum
The official NATIONAL court report thread
Top