..and "justice" for all.

mike65

Very nasty but no-one actually hurt.

A 38-year-old former IRA member has been jailed for 20 years after he was convicted of falsely imprisoning and threatening to kill a couple in their home in Cork last May.

Gerard Clarke from St John's Terrace, Upper John Street in Cork, has 45 previous convictions for offences including attempted murder, conspiracy to cause explosions and possession of firearms, as well as membership of the IRA.

A second man, Edward Gaffey from Dundalk in Co Louth, was jailed for 12 years.

Nasty and lasting physical damage done

Two men who assaulted a librarian on Grafton Street in Dublin were today sent to prison for three months.

Stephen Nugent, 24, and Dermot Cooper, 29, pleaded guilty in June to the attack on Barry Duggan, now 37, which left him with a broken jaw, a fractured skull and severe traumatic brain injury.

Dressed in dark suits, the two men stood impassively as Judge Donagh McDonagh told them the crime was too serious to deal with with a non-custodial sentence.

But he said he did not want to destroy the lives of the young men, and suspended two years and nine months of a three-year sentence imposed on each.

So whats the diference apart from the crimes not being directly comparable? Is it that one involved two 'fine chaps' (proberly from the judges class) who lapsed and the other an IRA man? Or is it just a case of random sentencing syndrome? It really is time that having a clean record meant nothing with respect to violent crime.

Mike.

Sand

Probably the 45 previous serious convictions counted against the provo, but I agree the sentencing in the second one is plain stupidity.

Judges seem to feel its their job to get crinimals back on the street as soon as possible. His reasoning that he didnt want to spoil the young mans life? What about the guy with traumatic brain injury? His life is ruined, he should have that recognised and acted upon by the Judge. 3 months is an insult to the victim of the crime, and a clear signal that its not a big deal to attack someone like they did. The sentencing for serious crime seems to be ridiculous.

Dimitri

I think the first case aside from the obivious humour of the attackers falling asleep allowing your man to escape and raise help is quite justified when the 40 odd priors are taken into account. As for the second case i can only agree with you, its madness. I've been of the opinion for a long time now that assult should result in serious jail time and also drugs or alcohol should not be taken into account. I've been drunk and high but never been violent. Drugs alcohol, poverty, etc is not an excuse imho. While i know it wasn't used as their defence its something i feel should also be mentioned if we are discussing justice.

Sangre

Friend knows one of the guys in the case and Im pretty sure it isn't just a simple case of assault (as in they went to beat the guy up)
But I'd have to look into to give a definite answer.

matrim

In the first story the guy had 45 previous convictions, and was accused of 3 crimes false imprisonment, threatening the couple and having firearms.


If you read the second case, the 2 guys were attached by someone, defended themselves. The were more violent in defending themselves than they should have and got punished for it.
So it's not a clear case of 2 guys decide to beat up some random guy on the street and get away without much of a sentence. And it would stand to them that the went to the guards themselves and made a statement.

lostexpectation

If you read the second case, the 2 guys were attached by someone, defended themselves. The were more violent in defending themselves than they should have and got punished for it.
So it's not a clear case of 2 guys decide to beat up some random guy on the street and get away without much of a sentence. And it would stand to them that the went to the guards themselves and made a statement.[/QUOTE]

and even if you take that description as the considertation the sentence is still too light

Xterminator

I disagreee.

The damage to the lad was done when he fell, and smacked his head on the ground.

Now, IE the two lads didnt give him beating to within an inch of his life!

Truth is if your defending yourself, some leeway needs to be given, as in the heat of the moment, knowing where to draw the line, and say, thats enough can be very difficult.

I think the sentance in this case fitted the crime.

X

seamus

You also have to assume that the two lads had no previous convictions, and no intent to kill the other guy. If he died, they probably would have been charged with violent disorder, as it would be hard to pin manslaughter for someone hitting their head when they fall.

3 year suspended isn't all that lenient, if you're generally doing your best to be a decent member of society. Perhaps the judge took that into account.

The other (IRA) guy from the first story on the other hand is clearly a scumbag, from whom you would take a death threat very seriously. I assume his accomplice had an equally chequered past, hence the 12 years.

Victor

I wonder if the compensation is the main reason for the suspended sentence.

Xterminator wrote:

The damage to the lad was done when he fell, and smacked his head on the ground.

He smacked his head as a result of the assault, not the fall from the bike. It is resaonable to expect someone to hit their head if you hit them enough to make them fall.

Xterminator wrote:

Now, IE the two lads didnt give him beating to within an inch of his life!

And you would reconcile that with the extended coma how?

The trio sniggering when he fell of his bike was understandable but unacceptable.

Duggan hitting Sean Cooper was understandable but unacceptable.

The duo / trio beating up Duggan was not understandable but unacceptable.

Andy-Pandy

Most Lads have been in a fight at some stage are another, I Know one of the lads involved here, and he is no huligan. JUst got pissed (not an excuss but a fact), got into a fight and the rest is history. It was completly out of character , in the years ive known him id never seen him fight and to compare what he did with someone who has 40+ conviction's is crazy. He's going to pay for it the rest of his life, surely thats punishment enough. They had never come to the attention of the police before, never been arrested, just messed up on one lously night. There's more of a chance of them being 'a menice to society' when they come out of prison than when they went in. How much time do you think they Should have got?

Bloodly Evening herald readers

the_syco

1st story: ex-IRA man. Gets 12 years.

2nd story: 2 very fit young men beat the crap out of someone, after they left the pub. After beating the crap out of him, they ran away, in triumph, patting each other on the back. They get 3 months.

=-=

1st guy got 6 years, and another 6 for being part of the 'RA. Scumbag, so he got a harsh penalty.

2nd story guys kicked the crap out of someone, to the effect that the guy won't be able to have a normal life again. They're not scumbags, so they only get 3 months each.

Whats the difference? In both cases they were not tried on what they did, but of what character they were. If the 2nd story people were scumbags, they'd have gotten at least 5 years.

Andy-Pandy wrote:

He's going to pay for it the rest of his life, surely thats punishment enough.

No. He'll pay for it in 3 months. The victim will live with it for the rest of his life.

They should have gotten 10 years, each. When they leave, they go back to their lives. The victim can never leave.

Xterminator

Why should they get 10 years?

If somone attacks you tomorrow, and you defend yourself, that is ok yes?

But if while defending yourself you lose the rag, and knock the bloke over, and he cracks his head, you get 10 years in jail. That is your position? yes?

Because that's not logical! I assume you are basing the severity of the sentace soley on the injuries to the initial aggressor?

I am a big lad, and there are plenty of cases where even one punch to the head can have devistating and permanent effects.

So do i lose the right to defend myself because i might injure someone who attacks me? Or does the aggressor (IE the person who threw the first punch) not bear some responsibility for his actions?

I belive to decide the appropiate sentance the judge should must take into account.

1. Who was the aggressor, (Clearly not the 2 lads)
2. What was the intent of the 2 lads. (It wasnt a premeditated attack.)
3. What is their previous criminal record, if any (none)
4. Are they likely to reoffend. (No one is psychic, but in this case they would be low risk).
5. What impact has it had on the victim. (Devastating, but this is tempered by the fact that as the aggressor, the victim must bear some of the responsibility for initating the fight!)
6. Did the lads show remorse etc, (Clearly from day 1 they have shown remorse, paid compensation etc.)

So going by the above reasoning, only for the fact the victim was so seriously injured, i dont think their crime would even merit jailtime. But they did damage this man, and so a short term in jail was i think merited.

I would contrast their behavour to that of the Annabel thugs whose actions were i believe far worse, who have shown no remorse , (except that of being caught), who wont tell the guards what actually happened, shielding some of the guilty partys from more serious charges, and who took a life, and took pleasure in doing so. (unless you dont thinkdancing on someones head is taking pleasure?)!

X

Sleepy

I love the way some people believe that membership of an illegal organisation isn't something which should be taken into account when one is being sentenced. Whatever your personal views on it, under Irish law being a member of the IRA is a criminal activity in and of itself.

Sounds like justice was done imho. Sure, the resulting damage to the victims would indicate otherwise but luckily we also take factors such as intent, character and the circumstances in which the crime was committed. AFAIC, the only thing the two lads did wrong was engage in a two on one fight. If this had been a one to one thing, I'd consider 3 years suspended to be harsh.

GuanYin

Xterminator wrote:

6. Did the lads show remorse etc, (Clearly from day 1 they have shown remorse, paid compensation etc.)

I'd contest this. They prepared a statement for the gardai once they found out the extent of their actions, but the left the seen with the guy on a heap in the ground and they were clearly elated by their actions.

Now, the Judge found that the statement was a carefully prepared one, his term was "self-serving". In the statement they accepted no responsibility for their actions.

They contested the guilty charge up until a point where the evidence against them gave them virtually no chance of winning. They then changed their plea to guilty of a minor assault charge which the DPP accepted.

The botton line is, they tried to get off. That is not remorse.

As an aside, I indirectly know one of the criminal in this case and he denied any wrong doing in public.

I hope the DPP reviews this and appeals.

Sangre

An appeal would most likely fail.

I love knee jerk reactions and a complete lack of understanding when it comes to how the criminal law works.

The two cases aren't comparable in the slightest.

Victor wrote:

The trio sniggering when he fell of his bike was understandable but unacceptable.

Hahah, get real Victor. It is unacceptable to laugh at someone fall off their bike because they're pissed? Oops, did I laugh at you? Well I guess thats understandable BUT UNACCEPTABLE!!!

Guy was in a coma because he hit his head off the pavement, partly due to the punches but probably more likely because he was so pissed ( he did fall off his bike). He started the fight.

Cake Fiend

There was no self-defence involved in the second case - the two charged were not the ones on the receiving end of the dig in the head, they had no business ganging up on one guy and putting him in a coma. IMO much less of the sentence should have been suspended. At least the one guy who got a smack in the back of the head would have some sort of understandable reason, probably would have got off with aggrivated assault, but the other two sound like they were just happy to have an excuse to batter someone.

The judge said CCTV evidence clearly showed the men had carried out a celebratory jump and a punch in the air following the attack.

Do these sound like the actions of a group of decent, law-respecting men who were concerned only with self-defence?

Miguel_Sanchez

The fact that they used in their defence the excuse that they were afraid of Duggan seems to be ridiculous to me. They were bigger than him and it wouldn't have taken much for them to fend him off without resorting to beating the **** out of him.

I realise that he started the fight but that's not an excuse to go to town on him the way they did.

Also the head injuries were caused when he was knocked to the ground during the fight *not* when he fell off his bike.

Victor

Sangre wrote:

Guy was in a coma because he hit his head off the pavement, partly due to the punches but probably more likely because he was so pissed ( he did fall off his bike). He started the fight.

There is no ervidence that Duggan was drinking and this is the reason he fell off his bike.

Sangre

So he started a fight with two guys sober?
What an idiot.

tnet

I don't know what to say about it talked about this with one of the guys in question shortly after it happened and it was awful for someone who was never in trouble before it was devastating, haven't been talking to him since though he flew off!!!

The Corinthian

I would imagine that the probability of a repeat offence was one factor. The first case involved someone who was a clear danger to Society and, given his record, was all but guaranteed to re-offend. With the second case, the defendants may have been such that they would be highly unlikely to offend - indeed; a longer incarceration may have institutionalised them making future offences more, rather than less, likely. Whether this was because of social class, past record, character references they we able to present, or a combination of the aforementioned is open to debate.

Another thing that may have come into play is what we don’t know of each case. For example of the first defendants previous 45 convictions, his last one or two may have been suspended or lenient, and this may have also contributed to the harsher sentence now.

Judges are notoriously fickle creatures, but at the same time I do think that there is too much speculation here based on too few facts.