Sexual assault...but sure he's a nice lad..Mod Warning Post 275

A quiet one · 22-12-2009 11:33am

Raiser wrote: »

At the time of sentencing there was 2 years suspended - Surely this individual and his network of honourable "Spokespeople" with their references to the "so-called Victim" and every other ignorant stance they have proudly adopted have shown that in order for true justice to be served Danny Foley shouldn't see the light of day again until he has served every day of his actual 7 year sentence.......

I asked as I did because I've read somewhere that legal reps for the defendant were expecting "as a worst case scenario" no more than "3 and a half years for that type of crime"
And he ended up with double, albeit with 2 years suspended.

seamus · 22-12-2009 11:50am

A quiet one wrote: »

I'd like to understand this a bit better.

4b) how many others were involved in deciding on sentencing?

It's only the judge who decides on the sentence afaik, though the jury can make recommendations which the judge may or may not take into account.

4c) Who else, (apart from the judge) would have known what the sentence would be prior to the judge officially declaring it in court at sentencing?

Possibly a clerk of the court, but likely no-one.

In other words what is to stop a judge from arriving on the bench and thinking, "Oh sod it, on second thoughts, I'll throw the book at him"

Very little, in reality. And it does happen all the time - particularly for petty crimes or traffic offences.
My uncle always has a great story of when he was summoned for a speeding offence. He arrived in that day, the judge was working through a whole pile of speeding tickets and was clearly having a bad day.
When the judge called out a name, someone would stand up, apologise to the court, the judge would throw the book at him, impose a £50 fine (back in the old days) and send him on his way. But if the judge called out someone's name and the guy wasn't present, the judge would just issue a £25 fine and move onto the next guy.
So when my uncle's name was called, he stayed in his seat and shut up. And left with a £25 fine.

It's worth noting that this Foley guy's appeal will probably yield some success in getting his sentence shortened. The maximum amount of time a person can spend in prison for this offence is five years, which is why the judge gave him five years in prison with two suspended. On appeal, he may get this reduced to 3 years with 2 suspended. The judge probably gave the maximum sentence knowing that an appeal was forthcoming - so if he gave a sentence of 3 years (for example) Foley may get that reduced to 1.5 or 2 years on appeal.

PopUp · 22-12-2009 12:32pm

seamus wrote: »

The maximum amount of time a person can spend in prison for this offence is five years, which is why the judge gave him five years in prison with two suspended.

I read that last week when this story first came out, but this bit in the Indo seems to contradict it?

Sentencing patterns are difficult to establish and assess in rape and sexual assault cases in Ireland. Judges have a wide degree of discretion.
Judge Donagh McDonagh described Foley’s lies as revolting and the language used to describe his victim as odious.
Foley was convicted of sexual assault, which attracts a maximum 10-year sentence if the victim is an adult and 14 years if the victim is under 17.
As Circuit Court Criminal sentences for sexual assault go, Foley’s sentence was at the upper end of the scale, but for very good reason.
He told a series of revolting lies. He refused to retract his claims until he was made aware of CCTV footage which showed him carrying his victim to a skip.
An employer described him as honest and trustworthy; Fr Sheehy said he didn’t have an abusive bone in his body.
His lawyers argued that the assault had been at the less grave end of the scale, but Judge McDonagh disagreed.

seamus · 22-12-2009 12:54pm

PopUp wrote: »

I read that last week when this story first came out, but this bit in the Indo seems to contradict it?

Looks like the indo copied verbatim from citizens information without checking sources.

The Citizens Information site says that the maximum imprisonment term is 10 years. However it links to legislation which says that it's five years. The 10 years comes from the old legislation.

So the maximum imprisonment terms are

5 years for a sexual assualt
5 years for a sexual assault on a minor
10 years for a sexual assualt on a minor, where the perpetrator is a person "in authority" (i.e. parent, guardian, teacher, etc)

sparkling sea · 22-12-2009 1:00pm

The Indo is right - S37 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 allows for a miximum sentence of 10 years if the person is 17 or over.

Ireland differs from the rest of the world in sentencing practice because not only should the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the crime but the circumstances of the accused must also be considered. The gravity of the offence is decided by the amount of harm caused and the offender’s culpability. This does not happen in other countries

This guy will serve 45 months/ 3 years and 9 months as their is an automatic right to a 25% reduction.

A year is acutually nine months in real terms in sentencing practice in Ireland

ashyle · 22-12-2009 1:00pm

_michelle_ wrote: »

but it is shocking to think that if it had been one of their sisters, aunts, grans would they have acted in the same manner :eek:
do they not have any idea what this lady went through like hello she was raped!! that is one of the worst crimes possible & to think people patted him on the back, they should hang their heads in shame!

I know, these men supporting him are fathers, sons, husbands themselves... despicable behaviour.

A quiet one · 22-12-2009 1:00pm

seamus wrote: »

It's worth noting that this Foley guy's appeal will probably yield some success in getting his sentence shortened.

So, in line with what PopUp's indo article suggests, what this appeal really has Foley saying is:

'OK, I'm fine with the whole Guilty bit, it's just the lenght of the sentence I wanna quibble about'

How long before that penny drops amongst his supporters from the court room.

sparkling sea · 22-12-2009 1:06pm

seamus wrote: »

Looks like the indo copied verbatim from citizens information without checking sources.

The Citizens Information site says that the maximum imprisonment term is 10 years. However it links to legislation which says that it's five years. The 10 years comes from the old legislation.

So the maximum imprisonment terms are

5 years for a sexual assualt
5 years for a sexual assault on a minor
10 years for a sexual assualt on a minor, where the perpetrator is a person "in authority" (i.e. parent, guardian, teacher, etc)

This is the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 and deals solely with children under 17 - it does not apply in this case, sentencing is determined by the 2001 Act

seamus · 22-12-2009 1:13pm

A quiet one wrote: »

So, in line with what PopUp's indo article suggests, what this appeal really has Foley saying is:

'OK, I'm fine with the whole Guilty bit, it's just the lenght of the sentence I wanna quibble about'

How long before that penny drops amongst his supporters from the court room.

Technically, yes, it's an admission of guilt, however an appeal against a jury's verdict requires that some abuse of court procedure has taken place or that some part of the evidence was missed or the trial was not safe or lawful.
You cannot appeal the verdict of the court just because you don't like how it turned out.

So in the absence of any good reason for appealing the conviction, solicitors usually go for the next best thing - a reduction in sentence.

This is the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 and deals solely with children under 17 - it does not apply in this case, sentencing is determined by the 2001 Act

Correct, I missed the 2001 act.

sparkling sea · 22-12-2009 1:26pm

A quiet one wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

It's worth noting that this Foley guy's appeal will probably yield some success in getting his sentence shortened.

So, in line with what PopUp's indo article suggests, what this appeal really has Foley saying is:

'OK, I'm fine with the whole Guilty bit, it's just the lenght of the sentence I wanna quibble about'

How long before that penny drops amongst his supporters from the court room.

Its hard to know if the appeal of the sentence will be successful in this case, it really just depends on who hears the appeal.

The supporters of this guy don't seem to be interested in his guilt, the seem fairly good at turning a blind eye to the facts. This is unlikely to change no matter what happens but hopefully the reaction of most Irish people to their behaviour may have caused some of them to re evaluate the way they judge everything related to this case

A quiet one · 22-12-2009 2:08pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its hard to know if the appeal of the sentence will be successful in this case, it really just depends on who hears the appeal.

The supporters of this guy don't seem to be interested in his guilt, the seem fairly good at turning a blind eye to the facts. This is unlikely to change no matter what happens but hopefully the reaction of most Irish people to their behaviour may have caused some of them to re evaluate the way they judge everything related to this case

I guess they'll hide behind the appeal being a technical admission of guilt. That it's just that there so happens to be no good technical reason for having the whole thing over-turned.
But if they dwell on the point that he didn't actually technically rape her, it might lead them to ponder on the aspects of what he was up to that surround such a technicality.

Sexual assault...but sure he's a nice lad..Mod Warning Post 275

Comments