extract from “The Gary Doyle Order” … below
Hi Folks …
We have an interesting day lined up for you, at the Summer School & ATT Fundraiser. For those that have previously attended a School of Commonology, this day will be a bit of a refresher, and as per usual with some additional juicy bits thrown in.
For those of you who are relative virgins to the School of Commonology, you may be pretty stunned at some of the revelations that the School throws up. The doors to the School are open from 12.30pm. You may only attend the School if you have pre-booked. The funds raised will be for “Attack The Tax” … The People of The Common Law Society, are giving freely of their time and energy to facilitate this one off Summer School.
The School will cover some heavy material, from Minor Criminal Offences, to Income Tax, to all level of Debt and the dreaded Receivers and Debt Collectors (time granted). Some may already be aware that we have peened some books on this material, and have included an extract from our most recent publication called “The Gary Doyle Order”, for you reading pleasure below.
The School starts sharp at 1pm and will finish up by 5pm. Additionally, if you book the School, this ticket will include access to the evening ATT update/talk etc. Thank you all in advance for supporting this event.
Book your places at the Summer School & ATT Fundraiser here: www.attsummer.eventbrite.com/
Short Extract from “The Gary Doyle Order”.
CHAPTER 15 | CROSS-EXAMINATION
The 22nd March 2013 trial date was fast approaching. We spent most of the time preparing a Cross-Examination script for Garda Kieran J Mahony, Garda Kenneth Larkin and Garda Cooper (the member in charge on the 24th. October 2012). All in all we had prepared approximately 15 hours of material and questions by the time the trial date came around. By my reckoning, the trail in real terms would take at least three days or more to conclude, with a possible additional few more days on top, once all of the deponents (witnesses), had been cross and re-cross examined. After all, we were aiming to expose the State to the full rigors of the LAW.
Even if we had lost the case, we were determined to make sure that we incorporated enough “Points of Law”, to allow and facilitate us to appeal the decision of the Court and Judge Catherine Staines into a Higher Court and thus expose the issues to a wider audience. Equally, if the case went against us, we wanted to be in a position to have Judge Catherine Staines’ decisions and/orders challenged or Judicially Reviewed: The High Court has a power or “jurisdiction” called “judicial review”. Judicial review is a way for the High Court to supervise the lower courts, tribunals and other administrative bodies to ensure that they make their decisions properly and in accordance with the law.
This had been, and was, the toughest time ever spent by me studying and working, rehearsing and practising anything. It was mentally tough, because it was not possible to guess or to know which way the Judge would respond or react, and/or how any of the witnesses were going to fare in cross-examination. You had to be mentally and technically prepared for anything, anything that Judge threw at you, and be prepared too, if necessary, to challenge the Judge on the LAW, or anything else that she might come up with. You had to learn to stay out of contempt, and if the Judge found you in contempt, you needed to know how to get out of it. Otherwise it meant more time in Prison. You had to work on getting the Judge on your side, whilst knowing that she was already not on your side. In summary, you had to gain control of the Court, and steer it towards the decision that you needed, and NOT let up until you got to where you wanted to go.
On a more basic level, you had to learn how to question/cross-examine the witnesses in the correct way and manner, how to put stuff to the witnesses, how to move the court, how to object, how to adjourn etc. There was a lot to take in in such a relatively short time, but it had to be done, so onwards we soldiered.
In terms of cross-examining or questioning the witnesses, there is really only one thing to be technically aware of, that is: DON’T ASK OPEN or AMBIGUOUS QUESTIONS. In other words only ask questions that require a YES or NO answer, and that cannot be answered in any other way. ASK CLOSED QUESTIONS.
For example, a simple closed question might be:
Isn’t it true Garda Mahony that you are a member of An Garda Siochana?
In this case if the witness (Garda Mahony) answers with anything other than a simple Yes or No, then he can be accused of prevarication, or of being evasive, which, once pointed out to the Court, makes him look like he is avoiding the question or direct cross-examination, because he has something to hide, and therefore is Guilty of some wrong-doing.
The idea here is to make the witness look like they are withholding evidence or testimony from the Court to discredit them in the eyes of the Court, and if you can also catch them out on a lie, and/or prove to the Court that they were NOT operating within or under the LAW, then the Judge and the Court cannot but find in your favour.
Keeping this in mind: By ONLY ASKing CLOSED QUESTIONS; means that you can stay in Control of where you need or want the questioning to go, and where you will end up. If there can only be YES or NO answers, then you can prepare the way ahead, a bit like you would if programming a computer. Computer programming at its core is based upon a series of 0’s and 1’s. 0 (zero) is Off and 1 (one) is on. The 0 (zero) can be treated as a NO, and the 1 (one) as a YES. With this in mind you can sort of reverse engineer, where it is you wish to go or end up with your questions and cross-examination.
If the witness uses the “I do not recall” or “I have no knowledge” button/answer; then you can and may challenge the validity and reliability of them as a witness with the Court. After all, why are they giving evidence if they do not recall the events, and/or have no knowledge of the event(s), or the law they are pertaining to rely upon, to prosecute or persecute you?
The 22nd March 2013 arrived … and we attended the Court. In tow with me were two friends, James and Rupert; both of them to act as witnesses to the proceedings. James was writing down everything in his best shorthand and Rupert was to help me to handle the paperwork, and assist me generally with and in the direction of cross-examination, and to point out issues as they arose.
Once again the case was put in as the last remaining case of the day, albeit it got going at about 12.30pm (ish). There were no members of the Public present, and there certainly were no members of the Press there. An Garda Siochana and Judge Catherine Staines had probably figured that this was going to be one of those “difficult ones”, and didn’t want the case splashed all over the Papers or in the News in case it didn’t go as they had planned.
This first hearing started at approximately 12.30pm and finished up at approximately 3.30pm, by which time it was clear that Judge Catherine Staines had heard enough and just wanted out of the Court, and Garda Kieran J Mahony was visually, physically exhausted from being cross-examined. All said, this part of the trial and cross examination lasted two and a half hours. On paper, we still had another thirteen plus hours of questions & cross-examination to get through.
Below we have summarised and condensed the cross-examination for your perusal, with some running commentary and explanations etc. Whilst this may not have been the most eloquent of cross-examinations, it did achieve primarily what we set out to achieve, and it did show up the Court, the Judge, the DPP, the State, the Garda Siochana and of course Garda Kieran J Mahony for what they truly are. What that is, you the reader, can decide for yourself … answers on a postcard.
A great many of the questions asked were repeated over and over, because Garda Kieran J Mahony was prevaricating, evasive and attempting to mislead and misdirect the Court as he was being questioned. Equally, Judge Catherine Staines interceded from time to time, to either explain or interpret the questions for Garda Kieran J Mahony, or to give evidence on behalf of Garda Kieran J Mahony. In other words, although Judge Catherine Staines “had no first-hand knowledge” of these matters, she answered questions for Garda Kieran J Mahony. This, in and of itself, is illegal and unlawful, and a breach of her duty to impartiality.
When the Court was clear of the Public and the Press, the case was called. The lads and me stepped forward and sat in the front row, shoulder to shoulder with the prosecuting inspector, Inspector Martin Harrington. Again, this is normally where the Barristers and Solicitors plonk themselves down, eye to eye with the Judge, and within earshot of the witness giving evidence in the stand.
Present was Judge Catherine Staines, Inspector Martin Harrington, Garda Kieran J Mahony, Garda Kenneth Larkin and one other unidentified member of An Garda Siochana. We suspect that this unidentified member of An Garda Siochana was either Special Branch, or someone from the Garda Commissioners office. To date we have not been able to establish their identity, what precisely they were doing there, or what role they were playing. Judge Catherine Staines seemed to be on familiar terms with this unidentified person (a), but to date had not divulged his identity.
Judge Catherine Staines was none too happy with my party of three, and asked the “Gentlemen” with me, to NOT sit beside me, but to take a seat behind me. The lads had no objection to this, so they just got up and cordially sat directly behind me. In retrospect, we probably should have insisted that we all stay together. After all you are entitled to have counsel and assistants with you in any Court. The fact that there were three of us meant that we three constituted our own Court, and if things did not go the way we planned, or we disagreed with the “Judgement”, we could issue a “writ of error” upon the Court and Judge. Perhaps Judge Catherine Staines was cognisant of this also, and wanted to separate us because of it.
The Game was on: Garda Kieran J Mahony took the stand, and was once again sworn in. “I swear by almighty God … blah, blah, blah, the usual lies”.
Then Garda Kieran J Mahony produced his Contemporaneous Note Book, and started to look at it, and read from it. Whoa for a minute, this was not sent to us under the “Gary Doyle Order”. This could not be allowed, so addressing the Judge …
Me: “Your honour, Garda Mahoney has a notebook there and that wasn’t proffered to me as evidence under your Gary Doyle Order”.
Judge Catherine Staines: (addressing Garda Mahony) “Did you give him a copy of your notes?”.
Garda Kieran J Mahony: “He didn’t ask for them”.
Judge Catherine Staines: Did you ask for the notes?
Me: “Yes … we asked under the Gary Doyle Order twice and they ignored it. They (An Garda Siochana) haven’t offered it as evidence”.
Judge Catherine Staines: “Just a moment now … With regard to the Gary Doyle Order. What a Gary Doyle Order is, is the system of setting out of evidence in your case. Now, unless you specifically ask for it to be regarded, they would not normally be sent. Do you want a look at the notebook? I’ll allow you review it in this case”.
Under the DPP Guideline on Disclosure Part 9 Section 9.2 – In the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Special Criminal Court  1 IR 60, Carney J. (at p76, in a passage subsequently approved by the Supreme Court at p.81) defied relevant material as evidence which “might help the defence case, help to disparage the prosecution case or give a lead to other evidence” … further … “the prosecution are under a duty to disclose to the defence any material which may be relevant to the case which could either help the defence or damage the prosecution and that if there is such material which is in their possession they are under a constitutional duty to make that available to the defence” – McKevitt v. Director of Public Prosecutions, unreported, Supreme Court, 18 March 2003, Keane C.J.
This was going to mean trouble right from the get-go. The point here was, that Garda Kieran J Mahony and An Garda Siochana had NOT submitted, or given us a copy of the Garda’s Contemporaneous Notebook to examine, and they were proceeding on the basis of relying upon it as evidence/testimony in their prosecution. They had withheld this evidence that they were relying upon from us, the Defence. It categorically stated in the DPP’s guidelines on Disclosure – Section 9.1: The constitutional rights to a trial in due course of law and to fair procedures found in Articles 38.1 and 40.3 of the Constitution of Ireland place a duty on the prosecution to disclose to the defence ALL relevant evidence within its possession. This does NOT state SOME or a BIT, or the stuff the prosecution deems relevant, and it does NOT state that a Garda’s Contemporaneous Notebook is exempt … it categorically states ALL …………..