Does your local Garda no longer seem interested? Maybe this is why.

Potential-Monke · 22-10-2014 2:19am #1

Garda couple’s attackers set to avoid jail

Four men who assaulted an off-duty garda couple look set to escape being sent to jail.
Judge Rory MacCabe indicated that he would sentence each of the four men to a combination of suspended sentences and periods of community service, if they were found suitable for community service.
After these sentences were indicated by the judge, counsel for the prosecution told Judge MacCabe that the Director of Public Prosecutions was still in favour of imposing custodial sentences on the men, but the Judge said he was happy to uphold his original judgements.

David Leonard then assaulted Ms Sheehan, knocking her to the ground and Mr Conneally was subsequently kicked on the ground as he attempted to pick up Ms Sheehan.
The court heard that Mr Conneally was knocked unconscious, received three cuts to his forehead, an injury over his right eye, severe bruising to his jaw and required a total of eleven stitches. He also has to wear glasses permanently since the attack, due to the damage to his right eye.
In the victim-impact statement from Ms Sheehan, read out in court by Mr Conneally, Ms Sheehan said the group followed the couple after they left the nightclub to go home and started shouting, ‘garda scumbags’, ‘garda tramp’ and ‘Conneally you’re not so big now without the blue uniform’.
Ms Sheehan said that after the attack she found her partner in a doorway unconscious and covered in blood. Ms Sheehan said she returned to work two months after the attack and was ‘quite scared mentally and physically’. She added that she was now ‘very anxious’ about dealing with public order offences while on duty and has been told by a surgeon that she might not recover from an injury to her back caused by the attack.
In his statement, Mr Conneally said the group of males were known to him on the night, from his time as a garda in Sligo. Mr Conneally said that as a result of the attack he suffered headaches and blurred vision, and he noted that his eyesight had not recovered, requiring him to depend on glasses. He said he too finds it difficult to deal with public-order offences and that the couple are fearful of going out in Charlestown since the attack.

Something has to be done about the Judiciary in this country. It's an absolute disgrace that someone who causes permanent, irreversible damage to an off duty Garda, for being a Garda, can even indicate that no custodial sentence can be imposed. I thought attacks on Emergency Personnel was supposed to carry higher sentences. Where's the incentive to work if the state doesn't protect those who protect others? I don't like saying it, but i wish that Judge would get attacked the same way and then see how he feels when another Judge indicates that the perpetrators would likely escape a custodial sentence.

I know no sentence has been given yet, but a Judge would hardly indicate what he has and then change his mind. And i sincerely hope that the DPP will appeal the leniency if no custodial sentence is imposed. Bloody disgrace of a country.

Zambia · 22-10-2014 8:55am

What message does that send to the community. Words fail me.

The J Stands for Jay · 22-10-2014 9:00am

I thought we still had the death penalty on the books for murdering a guard?

So it seems to be:
Kill a guard: get killed
Almost kill a guard: pick up some litter

kub · 22-10-2014 9:07am

The justice system in this country has a vested interest in re offenders. The criminals go in, get slapped on the wrist then back out to re offend. Why is this, because no matter how many times these criminals commit offences it does not cost them a brass cent in legal fees. The kind tax payer does that

Within the next short while we will have a new batch of Gardaí out of Templemore, they will be full of enthusiasm until they start experiencing the court rooms up and down this joke of a country.

TheNog · 22-10-2014 9:33am

I wish I could say that is an unbelievable judgement but I can't.

I wonder if the court Garda was withdrawn from Judge MacCabe's court would he kick up?

Zambia · 22-10-2014 9:41am

Even without the garda aspect it was a pre mediated prolonged attack on a couple on a night out.

Seriously ffs who does that? maybe the judge should consult his manis street preachers.
"If you tolerate this ,,,?"

Zambia · 22-10-2014 9:55am

TheNog wrote: »

I wish I could say that is an unbelievable judgement but I can't.

I wonder if the court Garda was withdrawn from Judge MacCabe's court would he kick up?

What's a court garda?

chrysagon · 22-10-2014 9:57am

no deterrent in this country.. i dont care if theres no room in mountjoy.. put 10 in a cell... if they didnt break the law they wouldnt be there

TheNog · 22-10-2014 10:09am

Zambia wrote: »

What's a court garda?

A Garda assigned to protect the judge when entering/leaving the court and to deal with any public order issues that may arise within the court.

horsebox7 · 22-10-2014 10:37am

Zealous reform of the justice system overall is badly needed. I really do feel for these victims who justice has escaped. I agree that demotivation among gards is understandable in situations like this but then where does that leave the general public who have to engage with the gards? Can the general public then lower their service expectations because of this demotivation? Don't get me wrong I deplore what has happened here but I think demotivation among workers in any profession that serves the public is something that needs to be addressed.

jbkenn · 22-10-2014 12:11pm

McGaggs wrote: »

I thought we still had the death penalty on the books for murdering a guard?

So it seems to be:
Kill a guard: get killed
Almost kill a guard: pick up some litter

Death penalty is abolished, constitutional amendment passed by referendum in 2001 prohibits reintroduction of the death penalty, even during a state of emergency or war

desertcircus · 22-10-2014 12:13pm

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

shruikan2553 · 22-10-2014 12:16pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

People tend to prefer it if violent criminals are prevented from being violent

Viper_JB · 22-10-2014 12:18pm

You could bet if it were a politician or a judge that was a assaulted it would be a different story when it came to sentencing...

kippy · 22-10-2014 12:22pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

Well, what do you suggest?

There HAVE to be harsh penalties in place, at the very least, for assaults on emergency services. Simple as that.

horsebox7 · 22-10-2014 12:24pm

It would appear that the punishment in this case is significantly disproportionate to the crime. So much for the saying "do the crime do the time". The punishment sends out a message to Irish society that such violence could potentaially be dealt by the justice system in a very lenient manner with zero repercussions. Unfortunately without public pressure on the justice system the status quo will remain firmly intact.

jbkenn · 22-10-2014 12:28pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

When you have been a victim of crime, come back and pontificate about sentencing.

Farmer Pudsey · 22-10-2014 12:41pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

Well we see that leniency over last twenty years has not resulted in a reduction in crime. Punishment has to be a deterrent. However in general judges and the legal profession have not got to deal with the legacy they leave behind.

The law is now a parasite on the country in general. It is sucking the life out of the economy. In the longterm at some stage we will have a sea of change that may well make even present so calledharsh sentances seem lenient.

Any garda off duty that is attacked because he/she is a guard, such a crime should carry a serious deterrent. Such a deterrent should be a custodial sentance. Physical attacks in general should be punished harshly. In thsi case a 2 year in gaol might deter such an action again

22-10-2014 12:41pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

We expect something more than non custodial sentencing for people who pick out two off duty Gardaí who are minding their own business while socialising. And for a gang to then attack these Gardaí because of their jobs. And for knocking one of them unconscious and leaving one of them with a condition for life.

Gardaí should be able to socialise without having to be worried for their personal safety or at least know that if targeted because they do that job that the offender will be dealt with.

desertcircus · 22-10-2014 12:44pm

jbkenn wrote: »

When you have been a victim of crime, come back and pontificate about sentencing.

I have been a victim of crime. But that's irrelevant: the entire structure of the Western legal code is based upon impartiality, which you seem to think is wrong. If you have a basis for this position, I'm all ears, but you don't get to simply assert something in direct contradiction of the accumulated centuries of jurisprudence and legal precedent without making a case for it.

That aside, does anyone have any evidence that harsher sentences reduce crime? It's not a weird question: if you think we should be reducing crime, then it's a perfectly legitimate question.

Dr Turk Turkelton · 22-10-2014 12:48pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

Well letting the (insert expletive here)stay out of jail with multiple convictions sure isn't doing a whole lot of good.
Maybe it's time to use the stick rather than the carrot.

kippy · 22-10-2014 12:58pm

desertcircus wrote: »

I have been a victim of crime. But that's irrelevant: the entire structure of the Western legal code is based upon impartiality, which you seem to think is wrong. If you have a basis for this position, I'm all ears, but you don't get to simply assert something in direct contradiction of the accumulated centuries of jurisprudence and legal precedent without making a case for it.

That aside, does anyone have any evidence that harsher sentences reduce crime? It's not a weird question: if you think we should be reducing crime, then it's a perfectly legitimate question.

We've hardly a system at present where guilty people are "punished".
It's pretty much a holiday camp in there for anyone who is "locked up" and sentencing is in essence a joke.

Crimes against the person, such as the one here should be treated far more harshly.
At the moment the sentences aren't harsh enough.

Evidence for harsher sentences reducing crime? Lock up people longer and they sure as hell wont be committing any crimes........

desertcircus · 22-10-2014 1:01pm

kippy wrote: »

We've hardly a system at present where guilty people are "punished".
It's pretty much a holiday camp in there for anyone who is "locked up" and sentencing is in essence a joke.

Crimes against the person, such as the one here should be treated far more harshly.
At the moment the sentences aren't harsh enough.

Evidence for harsher sentences reducing crime? Lock up people longer and they sure as hell wont be committing any crimes........

If there's a causal link between harsher sentences and fewer crimes, then there should be hard statistical evidence. The total lack of any on this thread so far leads me to suspect that harsh sentences aren't the solution people tend to think.

Zambia · 22-10-2014 1:02pm

desertcircus wrote: »

I have been a victim of crime. But that's irrelevant: the entire structure of the Western legal code is based upon impartiality, which you seem to think is wrong. If you have a basis for this position, I'm all ears, but you don't get to simply assert something in direct contradiction of the accumulated centuries of jurisprudence and legal precedent without making a case for it.

That aside, does anyone have any evidence that harsher sentences reduce crime? It's not a weird question: if you think we should be reducing crime, then it's a perfectly legitimate question.

if this was your brother or sister would you believe this was a fair sentence indication?

kippy · 22-10-2014 1:12pm

desertcircus wrote: »

If there's a causal link between harsher sentences and fewer crimes, then there should be hard statistical evidence. The total lack of any on this thread so far leads me to suspect that harsh sentences aren't the solution people tend to think.

Here's the scenario.

Guy A beats up a cop. It's his 20th offence. He has been in and out of prison under the current system of easy going prisons, light sentencing and "PC Justice". He'll be out again in no time as a reformed character to offend again, having been housed at the expense of the state.

In the alternative universe.
Guy A commits first offence of robbing a house. Guy A gets locked up for 10 years. Guy A cannot commit 19 more offences for at least 10 years, If he commits again once he gets out, hit him with another 10 years. 10 more years crime free from the guy.

Everyone else thinks twice about the law.

Harsher sentencing in THAT case leads to a direct reduction in crime.

Do you need more statistics?

Possible there should be a bit of leeway on a first offence once it is not a violent crime and indeed standard attempts to "reform" the guy while in jail. Reduce some of the mandatory sentencing for minor crimes to community service to free up jail beds for the serious criminals.

shruikan2553 · 22-10-2014 1:14pm

desertcircus wrote: »

If there's a causal link between harsher sentences and fewer crimes, then there should be hard statistical evidence. The total lack of any on this thread so far leads me to suspect that harsh sentences aren't the solution people tend to think.

Its a bit harder to be attacked by someone with 60 previous convictions if they are in prison.

vicwatson · 22-10-2014 1:17pm

We need the chain gang. Loads of work to be done around the place, and these thugs could it do it for free. It's a no brainer really (oh no here come the civil liberties commissioners runnnnnnnnnnnnnn)

PaddyTheNth · 22-10-2014 1:43pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

As far as I'm aware you are correct.

Sweden as far as I remember has significantly reduced sentencing for many crimes in the last generation or so and believe they are having success with preventing reoffending, but they have a massive complementary rehabilitation program.

In 2010 they actually increased the severity of sentencing for serious violent crime (I don't have the knowledge to understand whether this offence would fall in this category - in my uninformed opinion it should).

Link

I think it's disgraceful that the perpetrators of this assault are free to walk around and immediately offend again. There has to be some measure of a deterrent in sentencing.

AngeGal · 22-10-2014 1:52pm

desertcircus wrote: »

That aside, does anyone have any evidence that harsher sentences reduce crime? It's not a weird question: if you think we should be reducing crime, then it's a perfectly legitimate question.

It's irrelevant. Yes the goal of sentencing is partly punishment and partly rehabilitation (in theory but it seldom seems to work in practice) but for an attack such as this, the punishment of community feckin service and probation is insufficient. Those thugs need to serve time in jail.

from_atozinc · 22-10-2014 1:53pm

what a fookin disgrace. makes my blood boil.

Carlos Orange · 22-10-2014 1:57pm

The sentencing I see reported on a fairly regular basis makes me rethink my reaction to three strikes laws.

Carlos Orange · 22-10-2014 1:59pm

desertcircus wrote: »

If there's a causal link between harsher sentences and fewer crimes, then there should be hard statistical evidence. The total lack of any on this thread so far leads me to suspect that harsh sentences aren't the solution people tend to think.

Do you have any evidence that lenient sentences reduce crime?

donegal. · 22-10-2014 2:03pm

leaving aside the fact he was a guard, what sentence is normal for level of assault
(not what sentence you think they should get, but the sentence others have actually gotten )

22-10-2014 2:07pm

donegal. wrote: »

leaving aside the fact he was a guard, what sentence is normal for level of assault
(not what sentence you think they should get, but the sentence others have actually gotten )

You cannot leave aside the fact that both victims in this case are Gardaí. They were set upon because they are Gardaí.

ratracer · 22-10-2014 2:10pm

desertcircus wrote: »

I have been a victim of crime. But that's irrelevant: the entire structure of the Western legal code is based upon impartiality, which you seem to think is wrong. If you have a basis for this position, I'm all ears, but you don't get to simply assert something in direct contradiction of the accumulated centuries of jurisprudence and legal precedent without making a case for it.

That aside, does anyone have any evidence that harsher sentences reduce crime? It's not a weird question: if you think we should be reducing crime, then it's a perfectly legitimate question.

And what would your idea of suitable punishment be for someone who tries to seriously assaults another person? What would you suggest be done to make the aggressor see the error of their ways and reform? It is well and good saying that harsh incarceration sentences don't reform people, but what is the alternative? What country in the 'Western legal code' can say rehabilitation without removed freedoms has worked for them?

Also, take 'garda' out of the headline/description and substitute it with 'priest/nun/doctor', would there be uproar over these professions being attacked by scumbags for no reason?

donegal. · 22-10-2014 2:46pm

foreign wrote: »

You cannot leave aside the fact that both victims in this case are Gardaí. They were set upon because they are Gardaí.

of course you can.
I simply asked what sentence is normal if some one is assaulted (to this extent)

TheNog · 22-10-2014 2:49pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

Harsh penalties are not the norm at the moment considering that on average 2 Gardai are assaulted every day. How many Gardai to be assaulted will it take before harsh punishments are the norm?

I dont know how many Paramedics or firefighters are assaulted each year but someone here may know.

TheNog · 22-10-2014 2:59pm

donegal. wrote: »

leaving aside the fact he was a guard, what sentence is normal for level of assault
(not what sentence you think they should get, but the sentence others have actually gotten )

Very tough question to answer due to the wide variances of sentencing in Ireland but if I was to hazard a guess with an assault occasioning these level injuries on a civilian would attract 3-5 years.

I base my opinion on news reports

horsebox7 · 22-10-2014 3:35pm

Two words to sum this thread up DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT

TheNog · 22-10-2014 4:14pm

horsebox7 wrote: »

Two words to sum this thread up DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT

hmm very engaging

donegal. · 22-10-2014 4:15pm

TheNog wrote: »

Very tough question to answer due to the wide variances of sentencing in Ireland but if I was to hazard a guess with an assault occasioning these level injuries on a civilian would attract 3-5 years.

I base my opinion on news reports

jesus, thats i stiff enough sentence.
i'd presume assaulting a guard you'd expect at least double that so they should have been looking at around 8 years each ?

Potential-Monke · 22-10-2014 4:30pm

horsebox7 wrote: »

Zealous reform of the justice system overall is badly needed. I really do feel for these victims who justice has escaped. I agree that demotivation among gards is understandable in situations like this but then where does that leave the general public who have to engage with the gards? Can the general public then lower their service expectations because of this demotivation? Don't get me wrong I deplore what has happened here but I think demotivation among workers in any profession that serves the public is something that needs to be addressed.

I can't think of any way to word this without it sounding bad, so i'm just going to go the direct harsh route. Tough. The Gardaí are a public service, paid by the government. That same government, through it's Judiciary and laws, are not protecting it's employees. They are letting the Judiciary get away with crazy lenient sentencing for serious crimes, and doing nothing about it. It's been well known for a long time that assaults on Emergency Services personnel needs to be reviewed and harsher sentencing needs to be applied, but it's not doing it. There also needs to be a review of the Judiciary set up, and a proper, easy appeals process set up.

Also, if the public are annoyed that Gardaí may have lost interest, well, the public should then get behind the Gardaí and insist on the same changes that they require. Instead, most seem to prefer Garda bashing and blaming (see: Irish Water). The Government is against them, the public are against them, the laws are against them. I'm not saying Gardaí have lost interest, but i'm saying it wouldn't surprise me if they have. I imagine they'll still do the work, but just enough to stay out of trouble and within the law.

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

Lots of people have already stated it above, but a career criminal in jail cannot commit crime. Yes, Sweden is leading the way, but they have a rehabilitation system which prevents, or greatly reduces, the chances of re-offending. In Ireland, we don't. We have criminals who don't participate or engage with the probation services, or who ignore or break any bail or temporary release conditions, and nothing happens them. That needs to be changed. Until then, until we have an effective system that works, these people need to be locked up.

donegal. wrote: »

leaving aside the fact he was a guard, what sentence is normal for level of assault
(not what sentence you think they should get, but the sentence others have actually gotten )

Section 4 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997

Assault Causing serious harm:

4.—(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for life or to both.

In the same Act, Serious Harm is defined as:

“serious harm” means injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substantial loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organ;

To me, that includes that one Gardas eye. However, if the DPP didn't run with that (which i suspect to be the case, when has the DPP ever run with the proper charge), then it would be Section 3 Assault

Assault causing harm.

3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

As this was heard in the Circuit Court, 2(a) does not apply, so they should be facing 5 years. Puts it a bit more into perspective.

SoapMcTavish · 22-10-2014 4:31pm

Cane em ..... cane em all !!! Like Singapore ( I'm not joking - would love to see this introduced, especially for repeat offenders ). Public caning - Saturday morning - up in the park - some popcorn or a hotdog and free entertainment.

Wiki -

Singaporean law allows caning to be ordered for over 30 offences, including hostage-taking / kidnapping,[3] robbery, gang robbery with murder, drug abuse, vandalism, rioting, sexual abuse (molest), and unlawful possession of weapons.[4] Caning is also a mandatory punishment for certain offences such as rape, drug trafficking, illegal money-lending,[5] and for visiting foreigners who overstay their visa by more than 90 days (a measure designed to deter illegal immigrant workers).

Legal basis

Sections 325 to 332 of the Criminal Procedure Code [2] lay down the procedures governing caning, including:

A convicted male offender who is between the ages of 18 and 50 and has been certified medically fit by a medical officer may be subjected to caning.
The offender will receive a maximum of 24 strokes of the cane on any one occasion, irrespective of the total number of offences committed. I.e. A man cannot be sentenced to more than 24 strokes of the cane in a single trial, but he may receive more than 24 strokes if the sentences are given out in separate trials.
If the offender is under 18, he may receive up to 10 strokes of the cane, but a lighter rattan cane will be used in this case. Boys under 16 may be sentenced to caning only by the High Court and not by district or juvenile courts.
The offender will not be caned if he has been sentenced to death.
The rattan cane shall not exceed half an inch (1.27 cm) in diameter and 1.2 metres long.

Any male criminal, whether sentenced to caning or not, may also be caned in prison if he breaks certain prison rules.
Exemptions

The following groups of people are not liable to be caned for committing offences that may warrant a caning under Singaporean law:

Women
Men above the age of 50
Men sentenced to death whose sentences have not been commuted

Bongalongherb · 22-10-2014 4:37pm

In relation to the two guards that were assaulted... 3 years in prison, and I mean the full three years done. When they get out of prison, I would be very sure they will think twice about doing it again, as they will surely not want to do another 3 years. A nice long sentence like this will work IMO, so long sentences should be implemented.

Also. The 25% the government are giving to the unemployed like myself, and the extra €5 child benefit should have been used to go to building a new prison system, and with this, there would be no need to complain about no prison spaces.

TheNog · 22-10-2014 4:49pm

donegal. wrote: »

jesus, thats i stiff enough sentence.
i'd presume assaulting a guard you'd expect at least double that so they should have been looking at around 8 years each ?

The injuries sustained I feel would quantify such a sentence whether the injured party is a Garda or not.

Assaults on any ES member is a sensitive issue here because we can all relate to it on a personal level. You could almost that every ES member posting here has been assaulted or have at least witnessed a colleague being assualted. We are also acutely aware that ES resources are finite so for every ES member on sick due to assault there are 3-4 others trying to make up that members workload to continue to provide a vital service. Obviously if assaults on ES members increases there are less and less bodies to cover the workload which therefore reduces the services we provide. That is already happening across all services but sure hey, people will give out because we couldn't get there on time to safe a life or put out the raging fire or arrest a criminal.

TheNog · 22-10-2014 4:58pm

Question:

Has there ever been a case of a member of the Coastguard being assaulted? I have never heard of it happening before.

Potential-Monke · 22-10-2014 4:59pm

donegal. wrote: »

jesus, thats i stiff enough sentence.
i'd presume assaulting a guard you'd expect at least double that so they should have been looking at around 8 years each ?

You'd presume, but no. We wanted it brought in, but it was rejected, because we don't need protection. Shur, we should expect to be assaulted while trying to uphold the peace, investigate crime, put out fires, save someones life, etc, etc, etc. The article points to legislation already in place, but it's not enough. Those members were attacked for being Gardaí. There should be very specific laws relating to that. Instead, it's the same legislation as non-members, the same non-members who would not be targeted for being Gardaí.

22-10-2014 5:23pm

horsebox7 wrote: »

Two words to sum this thread up DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT

Come on. Explain.

22-10-2014 5:27pm

TheNog wrote: »

Question:

Has there ever been a case of a member of the Coastguard being assaulted? I have never heard of it happening before.

They were attacked trying to rescue a lad in a river in cork a year or two ago. The lad died. Had been drinking with 'mates' by the river.

HeidiHeidi · 22-10-2014 5:28pm

Is S.19 of the Public Order Act never used in these cases?

I realise the penalties are more or less the same as a S.3 assault, but it would seem more appropriate.

19.—(1) Any person who—

(a) assaults a peace officer acting in the execution of the peace officer's duty, knowing that he is, or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, or

(b) assaults any other person acting in the aid of a peace officer, or

(c) assaults any other person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of himself or any other person for any offence,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—

(a) having elected for summary disposal of the offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both,

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

(3) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty, knowing that he is or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

(5) The provisions of this section are in addition to and not in substitution of any provision in any other enactment relating to assault or obstruction of a peace officer.

(6) In this section—

“peace officer” means a member of the Garda Síochána, a prison officer or a member of the Defence Forces;

“prison” means any place for which rules or regulations may be made under the Prisons Acts, 1826 to 1980, section 7 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940 , section 233 of the Defence Act, 1954 , section 2 of the Prisoners of War and Enemy Aliens Act, 1956 , or section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960 ;

“prison officer” includes any member of the staff of a prison and any person having the custody of, or having duties in relation to the custody of, a person detained in prison.

kub · 22-10-2014 6:59pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

Ah sure God love all the poor prisoners, tell you what, let's open all the doors of the prisons tomorrow morning and let the poor misfortunate prisoners free, the poor things they did nothing wrong.
Have you ever been a victim of crime?

Does your local Garda no longer seem interested? Maybe this is why.

Comments