Latest news with #HIGHCOURT
The Journal
7 days ago
- Business
- The Journal
'Full on war' between John Magnier and American tycoon over €22m Tipperary estate, High Court hears
THE HIGH COURT has heard of a deleted text message sent by the sister of Richard Thomson-Moore in which she was critical of American tycoon Maurice Regan before Mr Regan offered the family €5M more than John Magnier's bid for their 17th Century Tipperary Estate. Alexandra McCullough was giving evidence to the court this afternoon in the legal row over the collapse of a €15M agreement for the farming estate taken by bloodstock billionaire John Magnier against Ms McCullough's brother. Mr Magnier was in court today. In the text, she described the fight for the 751-acre Barne estate in Tipperary between Mr Regan and Mr Magnier as 'full on war'. In the deleted 10 September 102023, text to local auctioneer John Stokes, Ms McCullough described letters allegedly sent to Mr Stokes by Mr Regan as 'swiping' and 'sniffing' in the manner of his approach in making offers on Barne. She further said he had 'thrown a tantrum' over the sale. The court was told the text was only discovered because the estate agent took a screen grab of it. Competing bidder Mr Regan, the court heard, had complained in legal letters to Mr Stokes about the way the auctioneer handled the proposed sale. Mr Mangier, the court has heard, believed he had a deal for the land after a purported handshake agreement with Mr Thomson-Moore at his Coolmore home the month beforehand. In messages confirmed by the witness, she described Mr Magnier as 'savvy' and 'decent'. Ms McCullough described the situation of the competing bidders, Mr Magnier and Mr Regan, to Mr Stokes: 'We are now at full war and we are the peasants caught up in it.' Mr Magnier is suing Mr Thomson-Moore and Barne over the collapse of the purchase. The estate has been owned by the Thomson-Moore family for generations and is held in a trust. Caren Geoghegan SC, for the Magnier side, put it to Ms McCullough that she deleted the message because she was afraid the disparaging comments about Mr Regan would come to light should the trustees of Barne entertain the higher offer submitted by Mr Regan as the family later requested. Ms Geoghegan also put it to Ms McCullough that she deleted the message after a €50K cash gift from Mr Magnier, gifted to Anna and Richard Thomson-Moore in brown envelopes, was returned to Coolmore on 11 September, 2023. Ms McCullough said she initially reacted to the offer of €50K in a text to Mr Stokes saying 'sounds good'. She told the court she 'just thought it a goodwill blessing gesture that happens in Irish business' which was 'above board'. Advertisement As time went by and when the money was returned, Ms McCullough said she was, by then, 'uncomfortable' with the cash offer. Ms Geoghegan said the deleted message was because Ms McCullough did not want it to come to light as it was 'critical' of the eventual preferred buyer Mr Regan and whereas it said Mr Magnier had behaved 'decently'. Ms McCullough said it was a 'hot message' she was 'uncomfortable with'. She said she was getting rid of a message in which she had been 'lippy about someone I didn't know' and that it was 'not as intentional as you [Ms Geoghegan] are inferring'. She confirmed it was the only message she deleted during the August to October 2023 period. 'I felt I was very rude about Mr Regan,' said Ms McCullough, who referenced people in her own job with 'so much money', 'stirring' things and 'making up lies' with whom she chooses not to engage. Mr Magnier is suing Mr Thomson-Moore and Barne over the collapse of the purchase. The estate has been owned by the Thomson-Moore family for generations and is held in a trust. Mr Magnier wants the court to enforce the deal he claims he sealed with Mr Thomson-Moore with a €15M hand-shake agreement for the 751-acre estate on 22 August, 2023, at Mr Magnier's Coolmore home. The Magnier side has sued the Barne Estate, Mr Thomson-Moore and three trustee companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd group, seeking to enforce the purported deal, which they say had been 'unequivocally' agreed. The Barne defendants say there was never any such agreement, as they needed the consent of the trustees to finalise any deal. Mr Thomson-Moore has told the court that while a 'price' was agreed with Mr Magnier for Barne, a 'deal' was not. After agreeing on €15M, Barne and the Magniers entered into an exclusivity agreement stipulating that Barne would not permit itself or its representatives to solicit or encourage any expression of interest, inquiry or offer on the property from anyone other than Mr Magnier between 31 August to 20 September, 2023. The trustees who hold the estate initially decided to remain loyal to the Magnier offer and felt Mr Regan's higher offer could be seen as 'provocative'. After the exclusivity period had ended, the trustees decided to go with Mr Regan's offer Mr Regan finally offered €22.25M and was made the preferred bidder. Mr Regan is not a party to the case. The case continues before Mr Justice Max Barrett. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Indian Express
23-07-2025
- Indian Express
Tale of 2 Mumbai blasts verdicts: Five ways in which the special MCOCA court and Bombay High Court differed
In a significant legal reversal in one of India's most closely watched terror cases, the Bombay High Court this week acquitted all 12 men who had been previously convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. The findings of the HC, based on a scrutiny of almost 44,000 pages of evidence, diverged sharply from those of the special MCOCA court that had sentenced 12 of the 13 accused in 2015. The thirteenth accused was acquitted. The two courts arrived at contrasting conclusions on several key aspects of the case – from allegations of custodial torture and the validity of test identification parades to the reliability of eyewitness testimony and confessional statements. Consider the following: THE HIGH COURT said that the truthfulness of the confessional statements – on which the prosecution had placed heavy reliance – was in doubt, as they were extracted through torture. 'Confessional statements were not found to be truthful and complete on various grounds, including some portions of the same were found to be similar and copied. The accused succeeded in establishing the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements,' the HC said. THE SPECIAL COURT had accepted all the confessions as being true. 'I have no hesitation in accepting all the eleven confessional statements made by the eleven accused as voluntary, true and trustworthy. It is settled law that the confessional statements so made under section 18 of the MCOC Act is substantial evidence. Hence, there is no legal impediment in acting upon them to draw the conclusions against their makers as well as against the coaccused named in them. There is not even a single confessional statement that is exculpatory. I have to, therefore, hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the confessional statements given by the A1 to A7 and A9 to A11 [where A stands for 'accused'] are voluntary, true and trustworthy,' the Special Court had said in its 2015 judgment. Under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), a confession made before a police officer above a certain rank is admissible as evidence. THE HIGH COURT, in its judgment, said that the accused had succeeded in establishing the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements. THE SPECIAL COURT, however, had said there was 'no evidence' for torture. 'It is very easy to make allegations of torture [in custody],' the court said, adding the allegations had been made very belatedly, and 'they have obviously come out of legal minds'. 'It is unacceptable and it does not appeal to the reason considering the alleged unbearable levels of torture for so long that not a single out of all the accused would not have complained, though duly represented by advocates, i.e., having the legal assistance. This is India where even a Pakistani terrorist gets a fair trial and fullest opportunity,' the court said. It noted that there 'is no evidence to substantiate their allegations about the torture'. THE HIGH COURT said that while the alleged connections of the accused with Pakistani mastermind Azam Cheema and members of the terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba could have been established with the help of call data records (CDRs), the prosecution seemed reluctant to provide these details. '…The reluctance of prosecution to bring the CDRs on record and destruction of the same raises an adverse inference against the prosecution,' the HC said. THE SPECIAL COURT was not that concerned about the CDRs. 'This is an inferential evidence and the CDR does not and will not show the location of a particular person at a particular place. It will only show location of the mobile handset as is admitted by the A7 in his crossexamination. Absence of calls at particular time will not raise any inference about a particular person or accused being not present at a particular place,' it said in its verdict. THE HIGH COURT looked into the examination of eight witnesses, which it categorized under four categories: taxi drivers who drove the accused to Churchgate railway station; witnesses who saw the accused planting bombs in the trains; witnesses to the assembling of bombs; witnesses to the conspiracy. The court ruled that the first category, which included two taxi drivers, were 'held to be not trustworthy and cannot be made basis for conviction'. It said that it had reached this conclusion in view of aspects such as the fact that they were silent for 100 or more days after the incident. 'We observed that both the witnesses could not get sufficient opportunity to interact, to observe and to store the face of the accused in memory. Hence, we held that their evidence is not safe to base conviction,' the HC said. THE SPECIAL COURT had a different take, especially on taxi driver Santosh Singh. 'In my humble opinion it is clear from the above discussion that the evidence of Santosh Singh, PW63, is a cogent and convincing evidence and his credibility has not been impeached during his crossexamination,' the special court said in its judgment in 2015. THE HIGH COURT also discarded the eyewitness accounts of the men who allegedly saw the accused plant the explosives in the train. 'These witnesses identified the accused in the court after more than four years. We, therefore, again examined the evidence of the witnesses to find out whether there was any special reason for these witnesses to recollect the faces of the accused after such a long period and for that we tried to find out whether these witnesses had sufficient opportunity or interact or observe or to see the accused to enable them to recollect their faces after such a long period. 'On scrutiny of evidence of PW-57 and PW-62, we do not find any such special reason or any other reason for triggering of their memory and to recollect the faces of A.1 and A.3. Therefore, on this count and the other reasons recorded, we have observed that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be made basis for conviction,' the court said. The HC also discarded the account of yet another eyewitness, Vishal Parmar, saying that he appeared to be a stock witness. 'The evidence available on record shows that he acted as a panch witness in four crimes out of which three were of DCB CID (Detective Branch, Criminal Investigation Department) and two cases were related with PI (Police Inspector) Tajne,' the HC verdict states. THE SPECIAL COURT had taken the accounts of all eyewitnesses, including Parmar, into consideration. 'The evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW74, is unimpeached and a cogent evidence and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that he is a got up witness or that his evidence is fabricated. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting his testimony,' the special court judgment stated. THE HIGH COURT agreed with the defence that Shashikant Barve, who conducted the test identification parade (TIP), was not a Special Executive Officer (SEO) when he conducted the exercise, as his appointment as SEO had lapsed in July 2005, and was renewed only on November 11, 2006. The TI parade, in which the witnesses identified the accused, was conducted on November 7, 2006, when Barve was not the SEO. 'We have no hesitation to hold that on the date of T.I. Parade, i.e. 07/11/2006, Shri. Barve (PW-82) had no authority to conduct T.I. Parade, and hence, the T.I. Parades of A.1, A.3, A.12, and A.13 conducted by him vitiate and need to be discarded,' the HC ruled. THE SPECIAL COURT, however, had ruled in 2015 that Barve was an SEO when he conducted the parade. 'It cannot be said that as on the date of the test identification parade SEO Barve, PW82, was not an SEO having authority to hold the test identification parade. To my mind, no person will dare to work as such if his appointment is not in force,' the court had said.
The Journal
08-07-2025
- The Journal
Court orders extradition of child abuser Oliver O'Grady to serve prison sentence in Portugal
THE HIGH COURT has ordered the extradition of former priest and prolific child abuser Oliver O'Grady – who was featured in an Oscar-nominated documentary – to serve a one-year prison sentence in Portugal for having more than 9,000 images and 29 videos of child sexual abuse. O'Grady (80) of Rostrevor Court, Mackin Street, Dublin 2 was arrested on 21 January 2025 on foot of a European Arrest Warrant issued by a court in Faro in Portugal. The warrant states that O'Grady was tried on a charge of possession of 'pornography of minors', convicted and sentenced to one year in prison in his absence by a Portuguese court after he failed to attend his trial on 7 May 2024. In opposing his surrender to Portugal, O'Grady complained that his fair trial rights were not adequately protected in the process that led to his conviction. He said that he had been unable to contact a lawyer appointed to defend him in Portugal. He further complained that his surrender would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms because of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the Portuguese prison system. To bolster his claim, he said he spent time in the Prisional de Setubal in Portugal in October 2019 after he was arrested on foot of a European Arrest Warrant from Ireland. He maintained that while incarcerated there he was not provided with medication, the facilities were unhygienic and, as a segregated prisoner on remand in respect of sexual offences, he was abused and had apples thrown at him. However, Justice Patrick McGrath at the High Court in Dublin found O'Grady's evidence relating to the trial process to be 'disingenuous and self-serving'. The judge found that O'Grady had tried to control the proceedings. Portuguese authorities, through An Garda Siochána, notified O'Grady of his obligation to attend his trial and the consequences of failure to attend, the judge said. There was no impediment to him travelling for his trial and, being a man familiar with the court system, he knew his inability to contact a lawyer did not excuse him from attendance, Justice McGrath said. O'Grady revealed his true mindset in an email he sent to the Portuguese prosecutor on 11 April 2024, the judge said. In the email, O'Grady showed that he knew of the impending hearing date but suggested he might not attend unless he could be assured of being admitted to bail. Advertisement Justice McGrath said: 'This is not the mindset of a person who is unaware of a duty to attend at court and of the possible consequences of non-attendance, but rather shows a person who is trying to control the outcome of proceedings.' Justice McGrath added that O'Grady was 'clearly trying to manipulate the system to try to secure a certain outcome'. Had he attended his trial, as he was required to do, he would have been given proper legal assistance before entering a plea, the judge said. His failure to obtain effective legal assistance flows from his failure to attend, Justice McGrath added. In relation to the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, Justice McGrath said the conditions at the Carreguiera prison in which O'Grady will be housed in Portugal have not been criticised. He said he is satisfied from assurances given by the Portuguese authorities that no such risk exists. O'Grady has a long history of sexual offences against children. Originally from Limerick, O'Grady emigrated to America after joining the priesthood. In 1993 he was convicted in California of lewd acts against children for repeatedly molesting two brothers. He was released after serving seven years in prison before being deported to Ireland in 2001. His crimes in California were the subject of a 2006 documentary titled 'Deliver us From Evil', in which O'Grady gave an account of his offending. In January 2012, he was jailed in Ireland for three years for possessing hundreds of thousands of images of child pornography. The images were discovered after he left his computer on an Aer Lingus flight in February 2010 and a staff member who discovered the files on the device alerted gardaí. 280,000 images showing children in sexual poses and 1,000 video files of child abuse material, known in law as 'child pornography', were discovered on the device. He moved to Amsterdam where he lived for several years before returning to Ireland. It was on this flight back to his home country that he left his laptop behind. In 2020, he was sentenced to 22 months in prison at Waterford Circuit Court for possessing child pornography. He had pleaded not guilty to one charge of possessing a video of an underage girl engaging in a sexual act on a date between December 2015 and March 2016 at St Otteran's Place, South Parade, Waterford city but was convicted by a jury. A former housemate reported O'Grady to gardaí after discovering a sexually explicit video on the computer.
The Journal
09-06-2025
- Business
- The Journal
High Court dismisses judicial review challenge against 579ft-high wind farm in Clare
THE HIGH COURT has dismissed objectors' judicial review challenge against the green light for a 579ft-high eight-turbine wind farm for lands in south-east Clare. More than 300 people from the area lodged objections against the Fahy Beg wind farm proposal and Clare County Council refused planning permission to RWE Renewables Ireland Ltd for the 38.4 MW wind-farm on lands 1.5km from Bridgetown, and 3.5km from O'Briensbridge in south-east Clare in May 2023. As part of the proposal, the wind-farm developers are to establish a Community Benefit Fund which will distribute up to €3.12m over the first 15 years of the wind farm. Documents lodged with the application state that the provision of the Community Benefit Fund 'will have a significant long-term, positive effect on the socio-economic profile of the study area and wider area'. The Council refused across five grounds including that the planned wind farm would depreciate the price of property as it would be visually over-bearing on those properties. However, RWE Renewables Ireland appealed and An Bord Pleanala overturned the Council refusal to grant planning permission in March 2024. In response, the Fahybeg Windfarm Opposition Group and Sean Conway launched High Court judicial review proceedings seeking to have the appeals board decision quashed for the wind farm which is to be located on a site 14km north of Limerick city. Advertisement However, Justice Richard Humphreys – who presides over the Planning and Environment Division of the High Court – has dismissed all grounds of the judicial review challenge. The applicants claimed that the decision should be quashed as the planned wind farm would materially contravene the Development Plan due to the loss of part of Ballymoloney Woods. Justice Humphreys stated that on the basis of the applicants' analysis, the felling of any tree necessarily constitutes a material contravention of the Development Plan. Justice Humphreys stated that this approach represented an 'excessively literalist and absolutist interpretation' of development plan objectives. Justice Humphreys stated that the application failed to engage with the specifics of the individual trees which are actually being felled, pointing 0.4 of a hectare or, or 0.2% of the total amount of long established woodland is being removed. He said: 'There is no absolute prohibition on the removal of trees, contrary to the applicants' complaints, and a reasonably informed reader would not read such a preclusion into the Development Plan when same is read objectively and holistically.' Justice Humphreys also dismissed the objectors' claim that planning permission should be quashed due to the impact that the wind farm would have on property prices in the area. He said that there is no substantive evidence presented that would conclusively indicate a depreciation in property values directly attributable to the wind farm's presence at this particular location. Justice Humphreys made no order in relation to costs.
The Journal
03-06-2025
- Business
- The Journal
'People's livelihoods at risk': Decision on opening of Skellig Michael to tourists due this week
A HIGH COURT judge will decide this week whether to lift a suspension on boating permits for ferries to and from the UNESCO heritage island Skellig Michael, saying the case requires top priority as 'people's livelihoods are at risk'. The permits have not been issued while legal proceedings are before the courts in the form of a judicial review of the tendering process. At the High Court today, Justice Garret Simons said he was 'staggered' by the assertion made by lawyers for the Office of Public Works (OPW) that it would need six months to prepare the case. He ordered it to be heard next month. Two companies, which were unsuccessful in their applications for the 2025 season, have made a judicial review application, resulting in a delay to the granting of permits. The season runs from May to the end of September. The OPW ran a competition in late 2024 to award 15 boating permits for summer 2025 serving the monastic island, which was chosen as a film location for the Star Wars movies, The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. However, in April 2025, two unsuccessful participants in the competition brought High Court proceedings challenging the outcome. The OPW has said that under Irish and EU law, they were then precluded from issuing permits for the 2025 summer season until legal proceedings were resolved. Advertisement Skellig Michael Boat Trips and Atlantic Endeavour Limited both dispute the process underpinning the granting of the licences, alleging it to be 'deficient' and 'without transparency' and have been granted permission for the challenge. At the High Court today, David Dodd BL, for the plaintiffs, told Justice Simons that nobody wanted to prevent boats from visiting the island. He said permits could be granted by the court in an interim fashion, as the issuing of a one-season permit was not a 'contract', as contended by the OPW. He said his clients are happy for the suspension to be lifted. Justice Simons asked Andrew Beck SC, for the OPW, why it would take six months to prepare for what the judge described as 'the most straightforward case of competition for licences'. Beck said there was discovery of documents needed, amendments to make and a possible issue around cross-examination. Justice Simons said he was 'staggered' that the case would take up to six months to get on and that there were 'livelihoods' at stake. The judge said the court would give the case 'top priority', adding that the court had 'gone out of its way' to facilitate an early trial. Justice Simons said he would rule on Thursday of this week on whether to lift the suspension of the permits. He adjourned the substantive hearing of the judicial review to 21 July. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
