Here's the link to Sunday's High Court judgment refusing the application by Breandán MacCionnaith of the #Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition for leave to apply for Judicial Review:
www.judiciaryni.uk/files/judici...
judiciaryni.uk
lawofprotest.bsky.social
@lawofprotest.bsky.social
215 followers 545 following 25 posts
Legal adviser @Amnesty (right to protest & civic space); @OSCE_ODIHR Panel on Freedom of Assembly & Association
![This court has previously held that the aiding and abetting charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) “need not be specifically pleaded and a defendant indicted for a substantive offense can be convicted as an aider and abettor” upon a proper demonstration of proof so long as no unfair surprise results. United States v. Tucker, 552 F.2d 202, 204 (7th Cir.1977). “If the trial court determines that the evidence warrants an aiding and abetting instruction, it is immaterial, although preferable, whether 18 U.S.C. § 2 is actually charged in the indictment. An aider is punishable as a principal.” United States v. Holleman, 575 F.2d 139, 144 (7th Cir.1978). . . . The reason for this rule is that 18 U.S.C. § 2 does not create a separate offense. It simply makes those who aided and abetted a crime punishable as principals. United States v. Gonzalez, 582 F.2d 1162, 1165 (7th Cir.1978).
United States v. Galiffa, 734 F.2d 306, 312 (7th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Kasvin, 757 F.2d 887, 890-91 (7th Cir. 1985).
Second, there is also no requirement that defendants be specifically charged with the crime of conspiracy for the ordinary principals of agency law to apply to their actions and those of their joint venturers. This issue is usually addressed in the context of a conspiracy or joint venture where courts have uniformly held that statements may be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) notwithstanding the lack of any formal conspiracy charge. See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 923 F.2d 519, 526 (7th Cir. 1991) (conspiracy charge not a condition for admission of statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)); United States v. Kelley, 864 F.2d 569, 573-74 (7th Cir. 1989) (A[W]e initially note that Rule 801(d)(2)E) applies not only to conspiracies but also to joint ventures, and that a charge of criminal conspiracy is not required to invoke the evidentiary rule”). This agency/joint venture rule applies to actions as well as statements.
Statements of a coconspirator are classified a…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:elipdmmf5istuvtyituspske/bafkreiakmwwxf72kzsce7vf35vr4kt5g3bf3uxumjcbz2wke4svduks7uq)
