Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Said no lawyer ever
Comments
-
Good call here on a sentence appeal.
http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-kicked-in-the-face-punched-over-car-dispute-20130701-2p69f.html
However, Justice Phillip Priest described the attack on Mrs Payne as "vicious and cruel", and said the sentence was wholly justified.
"For anyone to kick another in the face is, to say the least, deplorable," Justice Priest said.
"But when, as in this case, the kick is to the face of a frail woman by a male, committed in such a cowardly fashion, the offence is particularly serious. In my opinion the offending is not much mitigated by the appellant's personal circumstances."
It's a Victorian court btw0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13620
Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.
Probably very little because very few of the partners in big commercial firms would set foot in a criminal court.
If they want to be nasty about criminal lawyers / litigation lawyers generally that's fine, but plenty of uncivil things can be said right back at them, for which they probably would not come off the better.0 -
The Mustard wrote: »Saying something like this would not be looked on favourably by a Judge. Lawyers have a duty to do their best for their clients within the law, so this wouldn't be the way to go.
Yeah, I agree with you. It's like a conveyer belt.
At the District Court recently, there was a solicitor with a particularly deadpan delivery. He had several consecutive clients who were on their first possession of cannabis charges. Each was pleaded out with something along the lines of:
"He's young, he's very sorry, he won't do it again, he has no previous convictions, he plans to travel (to Australia) and he'd appreciate the opportunity of keeping his record clean."
The Judge fixed this solicitor with a disapproving look and stated that it was the same story all of the time and that it wasn't good enough that these guys chose to have cannabis if they planned to travel.
The solicitor agreed with him and then went on to present his next case in the exact same deadpan fashion. The Judge just gritted his teeth and got on with it.
Each Defendant got the Probation Act.
I'm quoting you because I want to pick up on one of your points specifically but I do have some more general points. What is the point in ruining someone's life over a bit of weed? We all do stupid things when we're young. The issue is not having better method for dealing with this. I'm open to correction but doesn't there have to be a conviction and possibility of a custodial sentence before community service can be given?
Why not give people 200 hours in places like the shelter on Merchants Quay, serving food and cleaning up after people with serious addiction issues. Perhaps a bit more of a reality check than €300 donation?
More generally this is the old one criminology theory vs. another. Is it possible that people from disadvantaged background actually do commit the lions share of crime and that's why it's pleaded so often?
Is it possible that as a society we are more concerned about a junkie that breaks in and nicks a €500 TV rather than someone who embezzles €500,000? That we're more concerned about the bloke that gets drunk and gets involved in a fight with another drunken idiot rather than the guy that gets into his car and kills someone?
I'm all for a tough stance on violent crime, but the fact is locking them up is only a temporary fix - shipping them to Australia however... :pac:
EDIT: Let's not forgets it's an adversarial system with both sides advocating for each others respective side. Seems a bit stupid, and frankly dangerous, that one side would start conceding things especially as 90% already plead guilty.0 -
LowKeyReturn wrote: »I'm quoting you because I want to pick up on one of your points specifically but I do have some more general points. What is the point in ruining someone's life over a bit of weed? We all do stupid things when we're young. The issue is not having better method for dealing with this. I'm open to correction but doesn't there have to be a conviction and possibility of a custodial sentence before community service can be given?
Why not give people 200 hours in places like the shelter on Merchants Quay, serving food and cleaning up after people with serious addiction issues. Perhaps a bit more of a reality check than €300 donation?
More generally this is the old one criminology theory vs. another. Is it possible that people from disadvantaged background actually do commit the lions share of crime and that's why it's pleaded so often?
Is it possible that as a society we are more concerned about a junkie that breaks in and nicks a €500 TV rather than someone who embezzles €500,000? That we're more concerned about the bloke that gets drunk and gets involved in a fight with another drunken idiot rather than the guy that gets into his car and kills someone?
I'm all for a tough stance on violent crime, but the fact is locking them up is only a temporary fix - shipping them to Australia however... :pac:
EDIT: Let's not forgets it's an adversarial system with both sides advocating for each others respective side. Seems a bit stupid, and frankly dangerous, that one side would start conceding things especially as 90% already plead guilty.
2 issues if a person gets community service that is recorded as a conviction, that has serious implications for a person future in relation to travel and jobs, by allowing a donation to the poor box and a strike out under the probation act then the matter is not recorded as a conviction but a strike out.
Point 2 while the system is adversarial a solicitor and or barrister is under an obligation to assist the court that can mean presenting case law against your point or as happens if the prosecution is aware of a fact that the Defence has not made clear that is to the advantage of the defendant then they will present that fact to the court criminal law while adversarial is also supposed to be fair.0 -
2 issues if a person gets community service that is recorded as a conviction, that has serious implications for a person future in relation to travel and jobs, by allowing a donation to the poor box and a strike out under the probation act then the matter is not recorded as a conviction but a strike out.
That was my point to be fair. The issue seems to be that society seems to think that application of the Probation Act is a 'soft on crime solution' in some respects I agree. What I don't agree with is giving someone a criminal record, with all that entails, over a minor issue. Surely a mid-point of no criminal record and a punishment is a better solution? I realise this would require a change in the law, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in some of these threads over how constrained judges are.Point 2 while the system is adversarial a solicitor and or barrister is under an obligation to assist the court that can mean presenting case law against your point or as happens if the prosecution is aware of a fact that the Defence has not made clear that is to the advantage of the defendant then they will present that fact to the court criminal law while adversarial is also supposed to be fair.
I take your point. I don't think legal counsel's personal opinion that the guy is a 'scum-bag' and just 'did it because he felt like it' falls into either category though.0 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe it occurred to the district judge - or perhaps it ought to have occurred to him - that a lot of young guys who find themselves in this position are, actually, your typical candidates for emigration. Even if the solcitor was exaggerating, I don't know many single guys under the age of 30 who can afford to say "well, I for one will not be emigrating". It's an ongoing possibility for plenty, if not most, young single men, and for such a petty crime, the judicious response is clearly to find an alternative remedy than recording a conviction.The Mustard wrote: »Each was pleaded out with something along the lines of:
"He's young, he's very sorry, he won't do it again, he has no previous convictions, he plans to travel (to Australia) and he'd appreciate the opportunity of keeping his record clean."
The Judge fixed this solicitor with a disapproving look and stated that it was the same story all of the time and that it wasn't good enough that these guys chose to have cannabis if they planned to travel.
The solicitor agreed with him and then went on to present his next case in the exact same deadpan fashion. The Judge just gritted his teeth and got on with it.0 -
I'd say District Judges are acutely aware of it.Cody Pomeray wrote: »Maybe it occurred to the district judge - or perhaps it ought to have occurred to him - that a lot of young guys who find themselves in this position are, actually, your typical candidates for emigration.
Yes, exactly.Cody Pomeray wrote: »It's an ongoing possibility for plenty, if not most, young single men, and for such a petty crime, the judicious response is clearly to find an alternative remedy than recording a conviction.
Interesting idea.LowKeyReturn wrote: »Why not give people 200 hours in places like the shelter on Merchants Quay, serving food and cleaning up after people with serious addiction issues. Perhaps a bit more of a reality check than €300 donation?
I would mention that the entire process of a criminal prosecution can be quite a wake-up call for many first-time offenders. They have the whole experience with the Gardai and having to attend to court for the first time. On a first cannabis possession charge, legal aid is not likely to be granted, so if they want legal representation they will have to pay for it themselves. There is also the possibility that the matter may require two or more court appearances before it is disposed of. This may require time off work. It's a load of hassle and it's a stressful experience for many. And then there is the issue of paying a charitable contribution. Rather than getting off lightly, it could be quite an ordeal.
Seems that way.LowKeyReturn wrote: »More generally this is the old one criminology theory vs. another. Is it possible that people from disadvantaged background actually do commit the lions share of crime and that's why it's pleaded so often?
If you look at it another way, if the accused had been afforded the best opportunities in life, perhaps the question may arise as to whether those privileges would work against him. (See here.)“This is a young man given all the opportunities in life including third level education. The question is that an aggravating factor?”0 -
The Mustard wrote: »
Seems that way.
If you look at it another way, if the accused had been afforded the best opportunities in life, perhaps the question may arise as to whether those privileges would work against him. (See here.)
Or one might argue it was a one off aberration that won't happen again as 'he's a good lad really'. I know it's cynical but, of course, it goes back to advocating for the client.
To be fair I wonder how much of this judges actually listen to and how much it really effects sentence.0
Advertisement