Ryanair loses legal bid to identify website critics
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dublin
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Perjury Act 1911, (common to Ireland and the UK) defines perjury as follows:
The maximum sentence is seven years. I cannot find figures for perjury prosecutions in Ireland but the situation in the UK is described in the following academic article (Warning - heavy reading)
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/publicit...s-paptcojc.pdf It contains the interesting statistic that over 100 prosecutions are brought per year (1991-2000) Over 80% of defendants are convicted and 53% of those go to prison. In the Hall case (1982), Judge Talbot remarked
and from the Crown Prosecution Service:
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is a wide one and includes the fabrication of evidence or inducing an other person to do so This would widen the net and could put others apart from Wilson and Brady into the frame. And into Mountjoy
If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a Judicial Proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury.
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/publicit...s-paptcojc.pdf It contains the interesting statistic that over 100 prosecutions are brought per year (1991-2000) Over 80% of defendants are convicted and 53% of those go to prison. In the Hall case (1982), Judge Talbot remarked
it is almost inconceivable that a sentence of less than three months would be given for a deliberate perjury in the face of the court, since such false evidence strikes at the whole basis of the administration of the law
Perjury is regarded as "one of the most serious offences on the criminal calendar because it wholly undermines the whole basis of the administration of justice":- Chapman J in (R v Warne(1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S) 42). It is regarded as serious whether it is committed in the context of a minor case, for example a car passenger who falsely states that the driver did not jump a red light as alleged, or a serious case, for example a false alibi witness in a bank robbery case.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by worldwidewolly
Can anybody throw any light on this perjury thing.
If smoebody is up on a charge of any particular crime and pleads innocent, i.e. I didn't do it, I wasn't there.............. and is subsequently found guilty, you see a sentence given for the crime but no charge of perjury.
What I am trying to say is, can somebody define the difference between perjury and the giving of a side to a story that is not accepted as true.
In this case (and I don't have the summaty to hand,) the judge said he didn't believe RYR etc., he didn't actually say they lied. That is a conclusion to be drawn but not what he said.
What I am asking is. Will the charge of perjury stick here?
If smoebody is up on a charge of any particular crime and pleads innocent, i.e. I didn't do it, I wasn't there.............. and is subsequently found guilty, you see a sentence given for the crime but no charge of perjury.
What I am trying to say is, can somebody define the difference between perjury and the giving of a side to a story that is not accepted as true.
In this case (and I don't have the summaty to hand,) the judge said he didn't believe RYR etc., he didn't actually say they lied. That is a conclusion to be drawn but not what he said.
What I am asking is. Will the charge of perjury stick here?
If not, you can expect little leniency in sentencing.
In this case I expect that a judge would take the perjury of witnesses into account when considering the awarding of costs - a stiff financial penalty might be considered appropriate for the waste of Court time.
Individual liability to prosecution would depend on the DPP.
A further mischievous appeal of the Courts ruling might well colour the DPP's considerations.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that this is almost too much to contemplate ..... the idea that these powerful, ruthless "untouchables" might get their due come-uppance is almost beyond belief (it is not meant to happen in real life, is it?).
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by delwy
I have to say that this is almost too much to contemplate ..... the idea that these powerful, ruthless "untouchables" might get their due come-uppance is almost beyond belief (it is not meant to happen in real life, is it?).
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cartoon strip
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like GGV suggests earlier, the perjury thing is down to the DPP following a complaint. I suspect that it won't go to a perjury case so some here may be disappointed. But no need. If GGV's legal chums are correct, FR really has bugger all grounds for an appeal. Therefore the damage is done and the ruling will stand which states that they lost the action and that at least two of these FR managers are liars and arguably bullies too.
Considering FR's history of attempting to solve most of their industrial disputes in the Four Courts and not in the Labour Court (the more usual channel for such disputes), perhaps this is an important point in that history where a pretty clear message has come from the Irish judiciary for FR to take these ill-advised actions against their employees elsewhere.
The employees on the other hand now have a useful collection of judgements about FR up their sleeve which may be of use in the future.
Of course none of this is to say I won't be getting a bit of repetitive strain injury tomorrow afternoon looking for the final word!
Considering FR's history of attempting to solve most of their industrial disputes in the Four Courts and not in the Labour Court (the more usual channel for such disputes), perhaps this is an important point in that history where a pretty clear message has come from the Irish judiciary for FR to take these ill-advised actions against their employees elsewhere.
The employees on the other hand now have a useful collection of judgements about FR up their sleeve which may be of use in the future.
Of course none of this is to say I won't be getting a bit of repetitive strain injury tomorrow afternoon looking for the final word!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anything, the real value here would be in any future legal case where either of these two men appear as a witness.
Their credibilty would be immediately under question and the fact that a judgement found them to have given false evidence in this case would render either of them an unreliable witness.
Does anyone know if these judgements affect their continuance as directors of a company?
Their credibilty would be immediately under question and the fact that a judgement found them to have given false evidence in this case would render either of them an unreliable witness.
Does anyone know if these judgements affect their continuance as directors of a company?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by potkettleblack
Didn't someone above say that a complaint must be filed with the Gardai before perjury charges could be entertained?
I wish to register a complaint!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the REPA site the hearing on costs took place this morning and the "extra" costs are being looked for by BALPA and IALPA. The lawyers mentioned to the judge the Ryanair press release sent out after the court case. The judge will give his finding this afternoon at 16:00.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RYANAIR WAS TODAY ROUTED IN COURT.
- ALL COSTS - PENAL? - WERE AWARDED AGAINST RYANAIR THIS AFTERNOON.
- THE JUDGE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT NEEDING TO MARK HIS DISAPPROVAL.
- HE ALSO SAID THAT THIS WAS ONE OF ONLY TWO TIMES AS A JUDGE THAT HE HAD FELT IT NECESSARY TO EXPRESS HIS DISAPPROVAL IN SUCH STRONG TERMS.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The estimates before today were for total costs of between €1million and €1.25 million. Today's judgment appears to have moved the costs into a higher band.
In reality nobody knows what the direct costs may be - but this can all be summed up as a combination of (a) losing the case, (b) pissing off the judge, (c) calling into question your bone fides in taking the case, (d) paying everybody's costs, (e) paying penal costs IN ADDITION.
HOWEVER, for anyone who thinks it is over, look at the history - there may well be an act of vindictiveness to follow this, aimed against some individual or organisation. So those of you in congratulatory mode might like to pause and think about that.
In reality nobody knows what the direct costs may be - but this can all be summed up as a combination of (a) losing the case, (b) pissing off the judge, (c) calling into question your bone fides in taking the case, (d) paying everybody's costs, (e) paying penal costs IN ADDITION.
HOWEVER, for anyone who thinks it is over, look at the history - there may well be an act of vindictiveness to follow this, aimed against some individual or organisation. So those of you in congratulatory mode might like to pause and think about that.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Thrid rock from the sun
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perjury Complaint
To make a complaint of Perjury, a person or persons who witnessed it, or was affected by it would have to make a complaint to the appropriate authority, ie. The Garda Siochana, or through his\her solicitor to the DPP. The Judge can also direct such an investigation. But the proof of the charge would require showing that the Culprit knowing made false or misleading sworn testimony.
Go For it Guys...
Go For it Guys...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cartoon strip
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From today's Indo
Ryanair lands €1m legal bill over failed pilots action
RYANAIR was yesterday landed with an €1m legal bill .
High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Smyth ruled the no-frills airline has to fork out all the costs of its failed seven-day court action against pilots.
The carrier also has to pay all the other costs surrounding the action and experts said the legal bill could be as high as €1m.
Last week the judge threw out a bid by the airline to find out who was behind messages on its pilots' website and in a strongly worded ruling said the only evidence of bullying was by Ryanair.
The judge said he was satisfied there were no threats or intimidation by pilots or unions of the type contended by Ryanair.
He also made a finding of false evidence in relation to two of Ryanair management who had given evidence in the witness box.
Yesterday the judge said he had no doubt that all the costs should be awarded to the pilots' associations against Ryanair. He said it is to include the cost of the action before the High Court and all other applications and even the cost of the daily transcript.
He refused to put a stay on the costs order in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Referring to his strongly worded judgment last week in which he made a finding of false evidence against two of Ryanair management, Mr Justice Smyth said it was only the second time in his career on the bench that he had to say things he found extremely difficult to say which could not be left unsaid.
Mr Justice Smyth dismissed a bid by Ryanair for orders aimed at identifying pilots who posted messages under codenames on a pilots' website.
The judge also held that, when Ryanair set up an investigation to find out who was behind the website, the real purpose was to "break the resolve" of the pilots to seek better terms and conditions. There was no warrant for Ryanair's action in seeking assistance from the gardai.
Ryanair had sought a number of orders against Neil Johnston, an official with IMPACT; the Irish Airline Pilots Association and its British counterpart, BALPA.
Earlier yesterday counsel for BALPA Michael Cush SC asked for full indemnity costs in the case. There should, he said, be something penal in the nature of the order sought.
The Ryanair case, he said, had been launched on the back on what the court found was not a bona fide investigation but was a "feigned exercise".
Counsel for Mr Johnston and IALPA, Bran O'Moore SC, said the entire case was driven by deceit. It was the witnesses that Ryanair had to subpeona who were found to be truthful.
Ryanair counsel Richard Nesbitt SC said it appeared the feeling of victory had brought the right to demand more than the ordinary.
Ann O'Loughlin
Ryanair lands €1m legal bill over failed pilots action
RYANAIR was yesterday landed with an €1m legal bill .
High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Smyth ruled the no-frills airline has to fork out all the costs of its failed seven-day court action against pilots.
The carrier also has to pay all the other costs surrounding the action and experts said the legal bill could be as high as €1m.
Last week the judge threw out a bid by the airline to find out who was behind messages on its pilots' website and in a strongly worded ruling said the only evidence of bullying was by Ryanair.
The judge said he was satisfied there were no threats or intimidation by pilots or unions of the type contended by Ryanair.
He also made a finding of false evidence in relation to two of Ryanair management who had given evidence in the witness box.
Yesterday the judge said he had no doubt that all the costs should be awarded to the pilots' associations against Ryanair. He said it is to include the cost of the action before the High Court and all other applications and even the cost of the daily transcript.
He refused to put a stay on the costs order in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Referring to his strongly worded judgment last week in which he made a finding of false evidence against two of Ryanair management, Mr Justice Smyth said it was only the second time in his career on the bench that he had to say things he found extremely difficult to say which could not be left unsaid.
Mr Justice Smyth dismissed a bid by Ryanair for orders aimed at identifying pilots who posted messages under codenames on a pilots' website.
The judge also held that, when Ryanair set up an investigation to find out who was behind the website, the real purpose was to "break the resolve" of the pilots to seek better terms and conditions. There was no warrant for Ryanair's action in seeking assistance from the gardai.
Ryanair had sought a number of orders against Neil Johnston, an official with IMPACT; the Irish Airline Pilots Association and its British counterpart, BALPA.
Earlier yesterday counsel for BALPA Michael Cush SC asked for full indemnity costs in the case. There should, he said, be something penal in the nature of the order sought.
The Ryanair case, he said, had been launched on the back on what the court found was not a bona fide investigation but was a "feigned exercise".
Counsel for Mr Johnston and IALPA, Bran O'Moore SC, said the entire case was driven by deceit. It was the witnesses that Ryanair had to subpeona who were found to be truthful.
Ryanair counsel Richard Nesbitt SC said it appeared the feeling of victory had brought the right to demand more than the ordinary.
Ann O'Loughlin