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

Supreme Court orders Garda murderer be given remission.

Options
  • 18-07-2013 2:58pm
    #1
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭


    Personally I am disgusted with this, he was sentenced to death but had a sentence of 40 years without remission imposed instead. Now he could walk free almost immediatley as the Supreme Court has ordered that he is entitled to be considered for remission.
    If released he will not even be on Life license like other murderers!:mad:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0718/463249-noel-callan-court/


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Old and grey wrote: »
    Now he could walk free almost immediatley as the Supreme Court has ordered that he is entitled to be considered for remission.
    edit: I am overlooking the effect of the 22nd amendment to the constitution on the 1990 legislation. You're right. The President doesn't have to get involved, contrary to the High Court decision which preceded this case. Interesting judgement.


  • Options
    #3
    BeerWolf
    Registered Users Posts: 4,122 ✭✭✭BeerWolf


    Honestly, who are the court to consider for remission - that should only be given by the victims tbh...


  • Options
    #4
    DaveDaRave
    Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭DaveDaRave


    jaysus 40 years.

    you wouldn't get anywhere near that these days.


  • Options
    #5
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    I don't see the big deal here.

    All the supreme court are affirming is the right of this man to apply for remission, and the right of the President (acting on the advice of the Government) to approve or reject the application.Wrong!

    If the President, acting on Government advice, feels there are no particular grounds for clemency or rejects any other factors which might justify an interference with the independence of the Courts, then there can be no interference with the sentence. They cannot remit. Wrong

    The fact the State even bothered taking this case implies remission is un-likely. I don't think this prisoner is going anywhere soon.Wrong

    Edit: seriously misleading thread title too OP.
    I suggest you reread the article, the President has nothing whatsoever to do with the granting of remission, the Supreme Court have ordered that he be granted it at the higher rate of one third meaning almost immediate release.
    This for a gurrier that was convicted of the Capital Murder of an unarmed Garda.
    :mad:


  • Options
    #6
    Alun
    Registered Users Posts: 21,420 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    Thread title wrote:
    Supreme Court orders Garda murderer be given remission.
    Old and grey wrote: »
    ... Supreme Court has ordered that he is entitled to be considered for remission.

    Two completely different things.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,024 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    DaveDaRave wrote: »
    jaysus 40 years.

    you wouldn't get anywhere near that these days.

    If you whacked a copper you would


  • Options
    #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Old and grey wrote: »
    I suggest you reread the article, the President has nothing whatsoever to do with the granting of remission, the Supreme Court have ordered that he be granted it at the higher rate of one third meaning almost immediate release.
    This for a gurrier that was convicted of the Capital Murder of an unarmed Garda.
    :mad:

    I don't see the outrage. A lot of other murderers have had their sentences reduced or given early release and as such it's only fair that he be given a chance at the same.


  • Options
    #9
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Alun wrote: »
    Two completely different things.
    "Today the Supreme Court granted a declaration he is a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one month who is therefore eligible, by good conduct, to earn remission, including higher remission, under the relevant prison rules"

    The Supreme Court have stated in their Judgement that he cannot effectivley be legally denied remission. He WILL be released with remission and the Supreme Court have also ruled that he meets the criteria for the higher rate of of one third remission meaning he will be released almost immediatley.


  • Options
    #10
    Mr McBoatface
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭Mr McBoatface


    Why should Garda Murder be treated any different to the Murder of an ordinary average Joe ?


  • Options
    #11
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    jobyrne30 wrote: »
    Why should Garda Murder be treated any different to the Murder of an ordinary average Joe ?

    The fact is under the law they are!
    Murder of a Garda is Capital Murder.
    I suppose it is because there must be some deterrant to prevent criminal shooting them down as they do their job.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Scotty #
    Registered Users Posts: 3,767 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    The tread title is misleading.

    The court ordered that he is entitled to remission (as is every other prisoner in the state), not that he be granted it.

    As he is a model prisoner I see no reason why he would not be granted it.


  • Options
    #13
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't see the outrage. A lot of other murderers have had their sentences reduced or given early release and as such it's only fair that he be given a chance at the same.

    Murderers do not get early release they are granted temporary release with strict conditions, breach of any of those conditions means being returned to prison to resume their sentence, this happens relatively frequently. This guy on the other hand will now walk free, not on parole or life licience (temporary release).


  • Options
    #14
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Scotty # wrote: »
    The tread title is misleading.

    The court ordered that he is entitled to remission (as is every other prisoner in the state), not that he be granted it.

    As he is a model prisoner I see no reason why he would not be granted it.

    Actually the effect of the courts decision is that he will have to be granted it.
    Consequently the thread title is in fact accurate.


  • Options
    #15
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Old and grey wrote: »
    Murderers do not get early release they are granted temporary release with strict conditions, breach of any of those conditions means being returned to prison to resume their sentence, this happens relatively frequently. This guy on the other hand will now walk free, not on parole or life licience (temporary release).

    Well the fact that this man may get early release means that it does happen, it's just not as common as the other examples cited above.


  • Options
    #16
    Mr McBoatface
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭Mr McBoatface


    Old and grey wrote: »
    The fact is under the law they are!
    Murder of a Garda is Capital Murder.
    I suppose it is because there must be some deterrant to prevent criminal shooting them down as they do their job.

    I'm not convinced there is that much danger in using a speed gun...

    I know that facts of the law. For the law to say one persons life is automatically worth more than an other person life is just wrong.

    Anybody who commits murder should be in jail for 40 years plus, not just the murder of Garda. The chances are he won't be given remission anyway so i'll save my outrage for the families of other murder victim who's killers are set free after less than 10-15 years.


  • Options
    #17
    maximoose
    Registered Users Posts: 9,196 ✭✭✭maximoose


    Old and grey wrote: »
    Actually the effect of the courts decision is that he will have to be granted it.
    Consequently the thread title is in fact accurate.

    No, it's not.

    As it states multiple times in the article - He has only been granted the right to be considered and, as Cody Pomeray said, and as this is criminal jurisdiction we are talking about this falls to the President.

    http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_Reform_of_Remision_TR_Parole_Oct_2012.pdf
    The right of pardon and the power to commute or remit punishment imposed by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction are hereby vested in the President


  • Options
    #18
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Misleading thread title.

    He's been considered for remission.


  • Options
    #19
    Scotty #
    Registered Users Posts: 3,767 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    Old and grey wrote: »
    Actually the effect of the courts decision is that he will have to be granted it.
    Consequently the thread title is in fact accurate.
    Doesn't matter what the effects are (though I do agree). The court ordered that he was 'entitled to apply for remission' not 'orders Garda to give remission'.
    jobyrne30 wrote: »
    The chances are he won't be given remission anyway...
    He's a model prisoner. As such he must be granted remission.


  • Options
    #20
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    maximoose wrote: »
    No, it's not.

    As it states multiple times in the article - He has only been granted the right to be considered and, as Cody Pomeray said, and as this is criminal jurisdiction we are talking about this falls to the President.

    http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_Reform_of_Remision_TR_Parole_Oct_2012.pdf
    Actually Old and Grey is right.

    There is a complex point of law called into question here.

    At the time of Callan's original conviction, there was a constitutional provision which said that all capital murders must only be considered for remission by the President.

    And even though, at the time of enactment of the Criminal Justice Act of 1990, art 13.6 of the Constitution prohibited the conferring of the power of the President to remit capital sentences on other authorities, this fact (surprisingly, maybe) does not render the relevant provision of the Act which effectively grants remission to Callan unconstitutional.

    So Callan is eligible for remission and may be eligible for higher remission. The former has a quasi-automatic effect.


  • Options
    #21
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Misleading thread title.

    He's been considered for remission.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Mr McBoatface
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭Mr McBoatface


    It is also worth pointing out that despite being convicted of murder he didn't actually kill anybody. Michael McHugh pulled the trigger on Sgt Patrick Morrissey as he chases them.

    I seriously doubt he would have been convicted in the first place if it was anybody other than a Garda.


  • Options
    #23
    Radiosonde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 613 ✭✭✭Radiosonde


    jobyrne30 wrote: »
    I'm not convinced there is that much danger in using a speed gun...

    I know that facts of the law. For the law to say one persons life is automatically worth more than an other person life is just wrong.

    Afaik it's only capital murder if the guard is murdered in the course of his duties, so while off-duty (say, someone who happens to be a guard being murdered by his brother or something) it wouldn't be. So they haven't deemed one person's life more valuable than another, just that it's a greater crime to murder an active member of the state's security forces (I think it would extend to other state servants in certain circumstances too.)


  • Options
    #24
    scuba8
    Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭scuba8


    jobyrne30 wrote: »
    It is also worth pointing out that despite being convicted of murder he didn't actually kill anybody. Michael McHugh pulled the trigger on Sgt Patrick Morrissey as he chases them.

    I seriously doubt he would have been convicted in the first place if it was anybody other than a Garda.

    You really have not got a clue what you are talking about.
    Joint enterprise is the reason he was convicted of murder. Sgt Patrick Morrissey was not chasing them at the time he was murdered. He had already been shot and was on the ground unable to move. McHugh ran back a considerable distance to shoot Sgt Morrissey dead.


  • Options
    #25
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    So he got 40 years even though he didn't actually shoot anyone. Interesting.

    Angry copper thread is angry.


  • Options
    #26
    jonsnow
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭jonsnow


    Radiosonde wrote: »
    Afaik it's only capital murder if the guard is murdered in the course of his duties, so while off-duty (say, someone who happens to be a guard being murdered by his brother or something) it wouldn't be. So they haven't deemed one person's life more valuable than another, just that it's a greater crime to murder an active member of the state's security forces (I think it would extend to other state servants in certain circumstances too.)


    I thought Gardai are never off-duty which is why they always have their badges on them?


  • Options
    #27
    scuba8
    Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭scuba8


    Bambi wrote: »
    So he got 40 years even though he didn't actually shoot anyone. Interesting.

    Angry copper thread is angry.

    So by your logic men go into a bank. Rob it. Come out get into a car and are driven away. The driver of the get away car is innocent of any crime as he did not go into the bank.


  • Options
    #28
    Corkbah
    Registered Users Posts: 1,668 ✭✭✭Corkbah


    jonsnow wrote: »
    I thought Gardai are never off-duty which is why they always have their badges on them?

    thought that was so they could get into nightclubs for free*

    * = I joke I Joke .... not a garda bashing !


  • Options
    #29
    Mr McBoatface
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭Mr McBoatface


    Radiosonde wrote: »
    Afaik it's only capital murder if the guard is murdered in the course of his duties, so while off-duty (say, someone who happens to be a guard being murdered by his brother or something) it wouldn't be. So they haven't deemed one person's life more valuable than another, just that it's a greater crime to murder an active member of the state's security forces (I think it would extend to other state servants in certain circumstances too.)

    The deliberate taking of a life and the sentences handed down for it should not be affected by a persons job and if they where working it at the time. It is no greater crime to kill a man in his home during a botched robbery than to kill a Garda member chasing thieves after a botched robbery.

    In all likely hood this man never would have been convicted of murder if the victim had have been a average Joe chasing them off his property. Because it was a Garda doing his duty the courts and justice system under political and public pressure convicted both men of murder, the gunman/murder who pull the trigger and his partner in the robbery.

    Don't get me wrong I no bleeding heart-ed liberal, but the law should be applied equally and fairly for all members of society and not "more equally" for those with lobby groups and political friends behind them.
    scuba8 wrote: »
    You really have not got a clue what you are talking about.
    Joint enterprise is the reason he was convicted of murder. Sgt Patrick Morrissey was not chasing them at the time he was murdered. He had already been shot and was on the ground unable to move. McHugh ran back a considerable distance to shoot Sgt Morrissey dead.

    Yeah your right and like i said McHugh killed him not Callan, Mchugh shot and and injured the Garda then McHugh (not Callan) ran back to finish him off.

    Honestly can you see joint enterprise applied in an other case involving a civilian murder victim, where one of the two criminal didn't use a weapon or strike a blow on the victim ?

    Anyway he was convicted of murder and served more time than most, like i said I'll save my outrage for the families of murder victims who's murder are out in less than 10-15.


  • Options
    #30
    stoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    jobyrne30 wrote: »
    It is also worth pointing out that despite being convicted of murder he didn't actually kill anybody. Michael McHugh pulled the trigger on Sgt Patrick Morrissey as he chases them.

    I seriously doubt he would have been convicted in the first place if it was anybody other than a Garda.

    Forgive my memory of the case if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that he walked back up to Sgt Morrissey when he was injured on the ground and shot him again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well the fact that this man may get early release means that it does happen, it's just not as common as the other examples cited above.
    Wrong again, he didnt recieve a life sentence he recieved a death sentence which was commuted to 40 years on the then general understanding that he would not recieve remission.


Advertisement