Banner

1st February 2016 Supreme Court, Dublin


This is a temporary page created due to demand and will be removed or replaced in the near future.

PLEASE:

Several individuals affected by offences committed during in camera proceedings decided that they will be attending Court on 1 February. The family and friends of the person that initiated these proceedings is pleading that no radical behaviour be seen at the Court on the day, or asked to leave.

Also, please pray for the three judges, the solicitor, junior and senior counsel involved in the matter and all the individuals affected, even the people accused of the offences.

Background:

Due to the interpretation of “In camera rule”, referring to several enactments in Ireland, many offences committed during “in camera” proceedings, can not be investigated and prosecuted if any party oppose the “lifting of the in camera rule”.

Offences referred to include (but not limited to) summary offences under the Child Care Act, and other indictable offences including torture, abduction, causing serious harm, rape, assault, abduction, coercion, perverting the cause of justice, perjury and many more.

One of the arguments successfully used was section 29 of the Child Care Act, interpreted as that only “solicitors or barristers” are allowed to draft a report and An Garda Síochána (the Irish Police) is not allowed, therefore been deemed an incompetent authority to investigate any offence.

The UN Convention against Torture places an obligation on the State to appoint a “competent authority” to investigate allegations of torture. As An Garda Síochána is not a competent authority, the Minister of Justice was asked to appoint one. None was appointed, referring the victims back to the Police who are not allowed to investigate.

In summary- (copied)

The Applicant begs of the Court to issue the following declarations or rulings:

1. That Section 29 of the Child Care Act, 1991, as amended, read together with Section 31 of the same Act, or any other similar enactment,

a) Cannot be interpreted to be used to prevent the investigation and prosecution of offences

b) Does not require the “lifting of the in camera rule” to report or investigate any offences committed

2. That Section 29 of the Child Care Act, 1991, as amended, read together with Section 31 of the same Act, or any other similar enactment shall not be used to limit or remove the rights of the individual under the Constitution or otherwise.

3. That the use of the “In Camera Rule” with the intent to obstruct or impede the arrest or prosecution of another person, including a person who is a public official, in relation to the offence of torture, is an offence under Subsection 2.-(b) of the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Act, 2000

4. That the Statute of Limitations on summary offences stopped running on the day the matter was initially reported to An Garda Síochána, other relevant authorities or the Court.

5. Any other declarations or ruling the Court may deem fit.

Courts.ie web page

The Supreme Court reference is 421/2011

Thank you.
-oOo-