Dessie O' Hare

hullaballoo

There is one caveat in operation here from the outset, and that is that defamatory remarks will be deleted immediately. Bans will be met out to people who go against this warning.

Following a post that had to be deleted this morning, I started thinking about the O' Hare case. I'm interested to know what people think of the situation the way it is. The man was sentenced to serve forty years, of which he served 17 for what was a despicable act.

How do you think it has been dealt with? Should he have had to serve out the full sentence? To what extent would people be afraid of a re-offence, or re-involvement with any illegal organisations?

Eru

hullaballoo wrote:

The man was sentenced to serve forty years, of which he served 17 for what was a dispicable act.

Thats really the start and finish of the arguement. THe simple fact in this case is that the crime was commited against a Republic of Ireland citizen, within the Republic of Ireland and the victim had no contact with any political (being polite ) group. Therefore the act of this person cannot be defended on 'Republican' idealogy or ignorance. The fact that the act was carried out for financial gain just makes it worse as there was no personal reasoning behind it nor actual ill will against the victim, it could have been anyone.

In my opinion such people are incapable of reform and under such circumstances will find himself frustrated at no longer having s 'justified' outlet for his evil acts. I have no doubt he will re-offend in a sickening way and will not refrain from targeting any single person.

hullaballoo wrote:

Should he have had to serve out the full sentence? To what extent would people be afraid of a re-offence, or re-involvement with any illegal organisations?

1. Yes and I think he is an example if why we should have the ability for indefinate sentences. Remember, he shows no regret or guilt for his actions.

2. The organisation he was involved with is now obsolete in the context he was used too. His skills lie within causing pain and suffering not in planning or executing crime and due to his volatile nature and indifference to his colleagues I dont think he will link up with any former comrades. We should remember and watch carefully, his relationship with Gilligan.

joebhoy1916

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Thats really the start and finish of the arguement. THe simple fact in this case is that the crime was commited against a Republic of Ireland citizen, within the Republic of Ireland and the victim had no contact with any political (being polite ) group. Therefore the act of this person cannot be defended on 'Republican' idealogy or ignorance. The fact that the act was carried out for financial gain just makes it worse as there was no personal reasoning behind it nor actual ill will against the victim, it could have been anyone.


1. Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners). Any such arrangements will protect the rights of individual prisoners under national and international law

Doesnt matter where his crime was commited he
was a "political prisoner" or if you like a qualifying
prisoner. (Goverment 2001).

The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give effect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998.

The man should of been out years ago.

hullaballoo

So you think that a peace accord should stand in the way of justice? You think that because the government had to resort to releasing criminals from gaol in order to stop murder and (although I am loathe to say it) criminality, that this is a benefit for our society? Do you think we should be proud of our legal system because of this?

To be honest, I've always doubted the legality of releasing prisoners under the Good Friday agreement. It seems to me that the separation of powers should prevent the government being able to step in and release prisoners at their whim. The President is the only person with the power to grant clemency, and I'm not sure to what extent she was involved in the agreement. Decisions regarding parole are still taken by the courts, so that didn't come into it either. Can anyone answer these questions?

Trojan911

hullaballoo wrote:

How do you think it has been dealt with?

Pretty appalling. Mutilation was used, he should have served out the full forty in my opinion.

hullaballoo wrote:

Should he have had to serve out the full sentence?

Yes, without any doubt.

hullaballoo wrote:

To what extent would people be afraid of a re-offence, or re-involvement with any illegal organisations?

No doubt there either. Once a player, always a player..

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

In my opinion such people are incapable of reform and under such circumstances will find himself frustrated at no longer having s 'justified' outlet for his evil acts. I have no doubt he will re-offend in a sickening way and will not refrain from targeting any single person.

I agree...

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Doesnt matter where his crime was commited he
was a "political prisoner" or if you like a qualifying
prisoner. (Goverment 2001). The man should of been out years ago.

He committed a despicable act of mutilation on a fellow human being, amongst other serious crimes to this same human being, he should not have been released in my opinion.

TJ911...

joebhoy1916

He committed a despicable act of mutilation on a fellow human being, amongst other serious crimes to this same human being, he should not have been released in my opinion.

TJ911...[/QUOTE]

What about the people who blew other people up.

hullaballoo wrote:

So you think that a peace accord should stand in the way of justice?

If you ask me they got justice he served 18 years I know a guy
who killed his father with a hammer he got 6 years.

"The President is the only person with the power to grant clemency, and I'm not sure to what extent she was involved in the agreement"

Good point but from what im aware she agreed for all the prisoners
to be set free.

Our man in Havana

Would there be any legal precedent to make him serve his full sentance? Or is everybody entitled to remission and parole?

hullaballoo

No, you can't re-lock up an offender like that unless he breaches the terms of his parole.

joeybhoy: I have a feeling that you may be misinformed as to the President's role in the agreement. I have not seen that she was involved in it whatsoever. I assume that the agreement has stood as it is because of the political precariousness that surrounds it. I can't imagine who might have the locus standi to take the constitutional challenge, nor can I imagine what judge would give judgement in their favour.

That, however is not testiment to its lawfulness. It is, as the Scottish say, "unproven".

Our man in Havana

What I meant was say if a person was sentenced to 40 years, is there any legal reason not to make them serve the full 40 years? Would the offender have any legal right to remission or parole?

joebhoy1916

I understand what you mean but he was in the INLA
its his right to be set free under the GFA as the
goverment decided in 2001 i believe it was.

nor can I imagine what judge would give judgement in their favour.

Cant see why you are talking about judges.

It is, as the Scottish say, "unproven".[/QUOTE]

Im not Scottish

hullaballoo

Eh, you realise this is the Legal Discussion forum right? Judges tend to arise in conversation.

joebhoy1916

You are talking about judges but this has nothing to
do with judges. The final decision on when he will be completely released rests with the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell not judges

Trojan911

joebhoy1916 wrote:

What about the people who blew other people up.

We are not talking about people blowing people up here, just the release of O'Hare..


TJ911...

joebhoy1916

Yes but the man just said a minute ago that
he should not be released because of what he done
and what im saying is its his right to be released
under the GFA! He thinks he shouldnt be released
because he cut the mans fingers off but people
were released who blew othe people up.

The man held a guy and chopped his fingers
off and served 18 years and half of ye think
he should of served the 40 years. Jesus people
who murder someone get what about 20 years.

hullaballoo

joebhoy1916 wrote:

You are talking about judges but this has nothing to
do with judges. The final decision on when he will be completely released rests with the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell not judges

Ok, you probably haven't studied constitutional law, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one and try to explain some of it to you.

Under the constitution, the powers of the state are separated into the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. (This is what I was talking about with the separation of powers above.) Now, it's not important what the executive do for the purposes of this illustration, so leave that to one side for a moment.

The Legislature.
This comprises the Seanad and the Dáil, which together make up the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas has the job of making the laws of the state, and there is a process for such laid down in the constitution. Due to the fact that it is the job of the Oireachtas to make laws, the constitution expressly says that it is their job alone. In other words, it's not down to anyone else to make law - this includes the courts.

The Judiciary.
The job of the Judiciary is to apply the law that the Oireachtas has made, but it is also within their remit, and their remit alone, to administer justice. This is where my argument arises out of the O'Hare case. Judges have the job of sentencing criminals, and it is also their job to decide whether such people who have been sentenced should be released from such a sentence that they have handed down. Thus, it is outside the power of the government to decide who can be released from imprisonment, as it is solely for the judiciary to deal with.

I hope this has provided some insight into the legal issues surrounding the release of prisoners under the GFA. It is a very crude and rudimentary run-down of the state of the law, but it is, to my mind, an accurate analysis.

joebhoy1916

This is where my argument arises out of the O'Hare case. Judges have the job of sentencing criminals, and it is also their job to decide whether such people who have been sentenced should be released from such a sentence that they have handed down.


Maybe so but you are wrong in this case.

And to answer your question no i havent!

Dessie O`Hare aka `The Border Fox`, who has served fourteen years in prison for the kidnapping and mutilation of a Dublin dentist in 1987, is being prepared for release under the Good Friday Agreement.


O`Hare and members of his gang abducted John O`Grady and held him captive for a period in 1987.


A ransom demand was issued and when Gardai failed to find it under a statue of The Blessed Virgin in Limerick Cathedral O`Hare, who had mistakenly assumed they had been stalling for more time, cut off the little finger on each of Mr O`Grady`s hands.


There then followed a desperate manhunt during which he eluded capture for a number of weeks and during which O`Hare was nicknamed the Border Fox.


As a member of the INLA he was entitled to early release from his 40 year sentence under the Good Friday Agreement and has been transferred to Castlerea Prison from Portlaoise where he has spent the past fourteen years.

This was wrote in 2002. Where are you from? Hulla

hullaballoo

It's none of your business where I'm from.

Incidentally, I'm not going to be told I'm wrong on an issue of constitutional law by someone who admits to never having read the constitution. I mean, how ridiculous are you trying to make yourself look?

I can't fathom what you're trying to get at by typing what appear to be newspaper reports, without attributing them to any particular newspaper at all. Maybe you could explain the point of that? All your doing is setting down the facts without addressing any of the legal issues. This is the Legal Discussion forum. If you want to spout nationalist ráiméis, you can do it in After Hours, but not in here.

Anyway, aside from the legal issues, O'Hare should still be in gaol for what he did. Serving less than half of your sentence for the mutilation of another man for financial gain is unbelieveable. Add to that all of the other offences he's been implicated in and you'll see the reasoning behind such a strict sentence. My point is that the government do not have the power to second-guess the courts on these matters. Of that I am sure.

Eru

Ah I agree, Im all turned around thanks to these compelling facts:

1. Dessie's "crime", if 'crime' it was, was to be an active Republican.
Hmmm, chopping off fingers that belong to citizens of the republic of Ireland is not a crime in the eyes of the INLA, good view of justice from the trenches there.

2. Dessie is being victimised, discriminated against and demonised by the state authorities. And yet his activities were no different from those of hundreds of others released under the GFA.
I partly agree, most Republican scumbags terrorised and tortured innocent people.

Both quoted from http://irsm.org/irsp/free_dessie/background.html

joebhoy1916 wrote:

1. Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners). Any such arrangements will protect the rights of individual prisoners under national and international law

Doesnt matter where his crime was commited he
was a "political prisoner" or if you like a qualifying
prisoner. (Goverment 2001).

The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give effect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998.

The man should of been out years ago.

Now, I have to take issue here as you are guilty of selective quoting and an incorrect comment.

A, You have quoted part 1 however in part 3 it states: "while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community" This is important, there is reason to worry for the safety of society should he be released.

B, This is the important one, Part 1 and just about every reference clearly states "convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences" can you please advise if kidnapping and assault are scheduled offences or similar? I do believe they are not. In fact they are not once mentioned as a scheduled offence in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland therefore he does not fall under the good friday agreement and is not due for release.

**Deleted a needless insult**

joebhoy1916

http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/08/11/%80%98free-o%E2%80%99hare-now%E2%80%99

Read near bottom

This has nothing to do with O Hare but might be worth reading

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0808/prisoners.html

I aint a Provo

Eru

joebhoy1916 wrote:

http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/08/11/%80%98free-o%E2%80%99hare-now%E2%80%99

Read near bottom

I dont as a rule read provo propaganda however I followed the link, no actual posts just a page with a pic of Bobby Sands and a logo. Its also a blog, it could say aliens have infiltrated the IRA, dont make it true however post another link and I will look.

joebhoy1916 wrote:

This has nothing to do with O Hare but might be worth reading

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0808/prisoners.html

Vaguely interesting OK but armed robbery falls under fireams offences so could be scheduled. Assault didnt involve firearm and your really pushing to bring the kidnapping in. This guy however has no chance, he wasnt a member of the INLA when the GFA came in or when the INLA went on a ceasefire. His arguement is the same as every Dublin criminal, "Im not in a non-ceasefire group", And????

joebhoy1916 wrote:

I aint a Provo

I said a pub provo, you support them.

dermot_sheehan

Just to add some points:

The power to commute is vested in the president, who acts on the advice of the government in using it (i.e. she has no discretion). The constitution provides that except in capital cases it may be delegated by law. The Criminal justice act (1951 I think) delegates it on the minister for justice.

So anyone who is serving time except for treason or capital murder may be released on licence by the minister for justice.

My own personal views are that he's scum and should never breathe free air again, but remember we are willing to release murderers under the good friday agreement in order to appease the IRA, and as bad as what O'Hare did, is it worse then taking someone else's life? Also I think it's BS that he qualifies since he only joined the INLA while in portlaoise and the INLA themselves qualifying under the GFA is tenuous at best.

joebhoy1916

I dont think i need to say anymore on the matter
someone thats not from my country is trying to
tell me im wrong. Em thats not true i dont believe,
he was the Provo's first at a young age then switched
to the INLA.

I dont support the Provo's anyways there long
gone my friend the war is over.

hullaballoo

What do you mean not from your country?

dermot_sheehan

joebhoy1916 wrote:

I dont think i need to say anymore on the matter
someone thats not from my country is trying to
tell me im wrong. Em thats not true i dont believe,
he was the Provo's first at a young age then switched
to the INLA.

I dont support the Provo's anyways there long
gone my friend the war is over.

And being in provos is not a get out of jail free card, it's more like a get put into jail on the word of a garda seargent.

The war may be over, but did o'hare's kidnap, ransom, an mutilation of an innocent dentist further that "war"?

joebhoy1916

What you on about Gab i never said anything about you.

And i believe its the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Bill, 2001

And being in provos is not a get out of jail free card, it's more like a get put into jail on the word of a garda seargent. (I would agree)

The war may be over, but did o'hare's kidnap, ransom, an mutilation of an innocent dentist further that "war"?[/QUOTE]

Im not sticking up for the man im just saying it was his right
to be freed. He served 18 years for what cutting off a man's
two small fingers killers wouldnt even get 18 years

dermot_sheehan

joebhoy1916 wrote:

What you on about Gab i never said anything about you.

And i believe its the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Bill, 2001

And being in provos is not a get out of jail free card, it's more like a get put into jail on the word of a garda seargent. (I would agree)

The war may be over, but did o'hare's kidnap, ransom, an mutilation of an innocent dentist further that "war"?

Im not sticking up for the man im just saying it was his right
to be freed. He served 18 years for what cutting off a man's
two small fingers killers wouldnt even get 18 years[/quote]

Ok, assumed you were referring to me.


He's freed on licence anyways, so the department of justice can call him in at any time, and even though he's servered only 18 years, remember many murderers don't serve that long.

joebhoy1916

He's freed on licence anyways, so the department of justice can call him in at any time

Yes he has to sign on next month and from what im aware
he's as good as a free man.

and even though he's servered only 18 years, remember many murderers don't serve that long.[/QUOTE]

Thats what im saying he got 40 years (the longest sentence ever handed down by the state for less than murder) for cutting a guys two
fingers off well ok he kidnapped him and he might of killed
him if the Garda didnt find him the man is nearly 50 now.
He is in jail most of his life and if he is half as bad as i think
he will be back in there soon enough.

joebhoy1916

Hulla was just wondering if you clear this
up whether I was right or wrong?

mountainyman

hullaballoo wrote:

Anyway, aside from the legal issues, O'Hare should still be in gaol for what he did.

There are individuals who should be detained permanently on utilitarian grounds. This is not in accordance with law. The initial sentence was absurd and amounted to the construction of ad hoc law.

hullaballoo wrote:

My point is that the government do not have the power to second-guess the courts on these matters. Of that I am sure.

You are quite right and the point is totally irrelevant. The judiciary (like the executive) are subordinate to the legislature. The exercise of justice was not assumed by the legislature. New guidelines were provided to the judiciary regarding parole and license. These are guidelines which the judiciary must follow. Given that they were put in place by the Dail there is no chance whatever of a judicial revolt. Had the Minister for Justice sought to impose the GFA there would have been such a revolt.

Was there an Article 26 referral of the GFA?

Pardons have not been granted

While it may be bad to cut off a mans little fingers the construction of ad hoc law is far worse.

Justice Carney in effect created ad hoc law. This is a continuing problem in the republic.

MM

hullaballoo

I'd edit out that defamatory comment quick-smart if you want to escape a ban, MM.

Aside from any of that. You are incorrect to state that the judiciary is a subordinate body to any of the other powers. The powers are all equal in terms of authority, they just each have different jobs. If the judiciary were subordinate to the government, then they would not be able to pronounce on the legality of state activity.

The sentence was not unreasonable in the least. Threatening to post a mans body to his relatives piece by piece is deserving of a heavy sentence.

mountainyman

hullaballoo wrote:

The powers are all equal in terms of authority, they just each have different jobs.

I don't agree that this statement is accurate in even a strictly technical sense. In a 'practical' sense (in the sense of the practise of the judiciary) it simply isn't true. The separation of powers is central to the strength of our democracy (seperation of powers is weak in Ireland). So is accountability to the people this is demonstrated by the people at elections to the legislature and judges are aware of this.

hullaballoo wrote:

If the judiciary were subordinate to the government...

I never said the judiciary were subordinate to the government (though as the GFA is an international treaty in practical terms they would have been loathe to make, accept or assist any challenge in this case).

hullaballoo wrote:

then they would not be able to pronounce on the legality of state activity.

The state is governed in accordance with the rule of law. (Ad hoc in the O'Hare case) Pronouncements on the legality of executive activity are clearly within the ambit of the judiciary. However in terms of legislation theactivities of judges are more limited.

hullaballoo wrote:

The sentence was not unreasonable in the least. Threatening to post a mans body to his relatives piece by piece is deserving of a heavy sentence.

The sentence was unpredictable and amounted to the implementation of ad hoc law. The law must be predictable.