Ian Bailey's lawyers accuse judge of ruling out evidence they claim was admissible
Ian Bailey's lawyers have accused the judge in his failed civil action of ruling out evidence they claim was perfectly admissible.
The claim was made in his appeal over an unsuccessful attempt to sue the Gardaí and the State for an alleged conspiracy to frame him for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier.
The main thrust of Ian Bailey’s appeal is that Mr Justice John Hedigan wrongly prevented the jury in his civil action from getting the full picture of their case against the State and the Gardaí who investigated the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, whose badly beaten body was found in west Cork in 1996.
Their claims of wrongful arrest and breaches to his constitutional rights were not put to the jury after Justice Hedigan agreed the time to act on them had passed.
In the end, the jury only had to consider two very specific allegations of Garda conspiracy – and they rejected both, leaving Mr Bailey with a multi-million euro legal bill.
Among his 30-plus grounds of appeal is a contention that evidence his lawyers intended to put before the jury was dealt with in a way that was “grossly unsatisfactory and fundamentally unfair” to their client.
His appeal will continue tomorrow.
