Judge lets rapist walk free, again.

SeanW

I just saw on the 6 one news (but it's not on RTEs website) that a judge has just let a convicted rapist walk free with a 3 year suspended sentence, and the victim has waived the right to anonymity to publicly ask the DPP to appeal the leniency of the 'sentence.'

The facts of the case as I understand it are like this:
Man breaks into a mother of 3's home in the early morning hours and proceeds to rape her while she sleeps.
Is brought to trial.
Pleads 'not guilty' because he'd blacked out that night from a cocktail of drink and drugs.
Found Guilty by a jury.
Let walk by the judge.

It seems there's not a half-year goes by but that someone commits and is found guilty of rape, or some similarly major crime, only to be set free by the judge.

What the hell is wrong with judges in this country? The dingbat responsible for this travesty of justice should be *@#%ing fired, if that's possible.

hullaballoo

SeanW wrote:

I just saw on the 6 one news (but it's not on RTEs website) that a judge has just let a convicted rapist walk free with a 3 year suspended sentence, and the victim has waived the right to anonymity to publicly ask the DPP to appeal the leniency of the 'sentence.'

The facts of the case as I understand it are like this:
Man breaks into a mother of 3's home in the early morning hours and proceeds to rape her while she sleeps.
Is brought to trial.
Pleads 'not guilty' because he'd blacked out that night from a cocktail of drink and drugs.
Found Guilty by a jury.
Let walk by the judge.

It seems there's not a half-year goes by but that someone commits and is found guilty of rape, or some similarly major crime, only to be set free by the judge.

What the hell is wrong with judges in this country? The dingbat responsible for this travesty of justice should be *@#%ing fired, if that's possible.

Were you there for the whole case? Did you have some sort of active involvement in the process ab initio?

If not, you have no right to call for the impeachment of a professional.

murphaph

hullaball&#250 wrote:

If not, you have no right to call for the impeachment of a professional.

He has every right. He's a citizen of this land and what happened today was a travesty of 'justice'. That woman is very brave for waiving her right to anonymity to highlight this outrage. One can only hope the DPP appeal this rubbish and the CONVICTED RAPIST gets what's due to him, at a minimum a custodial sentence!

Wertz

IMO suspended sentences are or should be for, relatively minor offences....their use in any assault case, bar the most minor simply shouldn't be allowed....a 1 yr custodial sentence might be a slap in the face for the victime here but it would be miles better than a 3 yr suspended sentence; at least it gets the culprit off the streets and gives him time to reflect on what he's odne and brings a little justice to the victim.

AFAIK the only mitigating circumstances the judge brought into account were the fact that the rapist couldn't recall the incident and/or was drunk/stoned/whatever...I mean WTF....this is basically saying to all and sundry out there to go forth and get inebriated and don't worry about the consequences of anything your altered mind decides to do whilst you're not in ful control of it....drink/drugs as a mitigating factor in something so heinous as a sexual assault should not be brought to bear....the judiciary of this country need to get with the times.

lostexpectation

there must be more to it then that? I hate these 'judge lets rapist walk free'headlines without the detail

as It said in the news the judge has just sentenced consistent criminal too 15 yrs for rape of 75yr old women so its not like he's softe on rapists

there must be some technical reason for it?
he said something about previous comparable case?

maybe something about how he was named in the local papers? was this before he was charged?

Vegeta

Wertz wrote:

IMO suspended sentences are or should be for, relatively minor offences....their use in any assault case, bar the most minor simply shouldn't be allowed....a 1 yr custodial sentence might be a slap in the face for the victime here but it would be miles better than a 3 yr suspended sentence; at least it gets the culprit off the streets and gives him time to reflect on what he's odne and brings a little justice to the victim.

AFAIK the only mitigating circumstances the judge brought into account were the fact that the rapist couldn't recall the incident and/or was drunk/stoned/whatever...I mean WTF....this is basically saying to all and sundry out there to go forth and get inebriated and don't worry about the consequences of anything your altered mind decides to do whilst you're not in ful control of it....drink/drugs as a mitigating factor in something so heinous as a sexual assault should not be brought to bear....the judiciary of this country need to get with the times.

said it better than i ever could, i totally agree

InFront

There's a link to tje article on the Irish Times site
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0313/breaking80.htm

Were you there for the whole case? Did you have some sort of active involvement in the process ab initio?

If not, you have no right to call for the impeachment of a professional.

No, and even though this has some of the characteristics of a 'Trial By Liveline' (literally), the public need not always be required to tip-toe submissively around judicial decisions (not that you were suggesting that), nor should they always go without some level of questioning. None of us were there to hear all the evidence, but that doesn't disqualify the frustration that a man who raped a deaf woman in her home while he was off of his face on alcohol and illegal drugs, ultimately walks free from the court.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

InFront

Well thankfully there's no such thing as 'sentencing by popular vote', but that case certainly did beg the question of how many second (+++) chances we allow these people?
Obviously individual criminal cases can't be expected to be used to 'set an example', but it inevitably happens, and you have to ask as well what kind of message is being sent to rape victims, and particularly those whose cases haven't yet been fully processed by the courts. Wouldn't you be asking yourself if it's worth it?

Wertz

If we're going to bring that other rape case (the 75yr old) into it, I'm sure I heard yesterday that the judge contemplated handing down a life sentence, but felt that a possible 55 yr sentence was too harsh....now that's as maybe, but surely there's some kind of middle ground here...I mean why not jus split the difference and give him 30 yrs?
Was 15 yfs the maximum time he could hand out for the conviction? If so that's something that needs to be looked at...

This is all getting away from the topic of the non-sentence given out to this other guy...he's found guilty by a jury of his peers (after pleading not-guilty in order for it to go to a jury in the first place) and then get's a walk.
That's wrong...it says to the jury, "Hey your time here has been well spent", it says to the victime "Yeah the law doesn't really give a damn about you or what you've been through...it's far too busy trying not to make an example of someone"

There's a thread on AH entitled "Sack the judges"....I couldn't agree more at this resent moment...what if that poor woman was your g/f or sister...personally I'd be going out of my mind and contemplating murdering the rapist in question.

Judt

Let's be honest - a "suspended" sentence isn't a sentence at all. "If you commit another crime then you'll pay for this one", or "You're supposed to be law abiding, you weren't, but if you're good you'll get away with this."

Three years in jail is too little for rape. Three years suspended? I mean, wtf? The woman went back to her home town on the same train as this guy! "I can't recall because I was out of my mind" doesn't mean you're excused your actions (be it a convenient excuse or not.)

And I don't like the suggestion that the public can't question judicial decisions. We're all in this together, so to speak.

LostinBlanch

Seems like the perfect way to lead to an increase in vigilante behaviour. A scumbag (that's what he is, not a victim of society) is convicted of breaking into a womans house and raping her while she was in bed. He "claims" he was out of his head on drink and drugs, denies the crime, is convicted and promptly gets a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile the victim seems to be once again victimised because it looks like the judge is trying to prove a point about the court of criminal appeal over ruling a previous sentence of his regarding another rape conviction, suspending a sentence of another rapist who admitted his crime and didn't force his victim to go through the trauma of a court case.*

People can see that this sentence is in no way just and some would probably feel justified in meting out their own "justice" to the scumbag who has been named in the media. While I am not condoning this, I don't think you would find too many people who would cry if it did happen. The punishment has to be seen to fit the crime otherwise any respect for the law goes out the window and creates a dangerous vaccuum.

But then again, according to some on here the public "have no right to call for the impeachment of a professional." Ridiculous, arrogant and dangerous thinking that could lead to more tragedy down the line. Not that any of these "professionals" insulated from real life give a damn about that.

*If I am proved wrong about this, I will apologise and withdraw that remark. But right now that's what it looks like to me.

leninbenjamin

I guess you can't trust the media fully these days and i havn't followed this case or anything... but.... f*ckin hell to be CONVICTED of rape and then handed a suspended sentence... that sentence alone beggars belief.

and why should the fact he was on drugs count towards any leniency? surely the fact he was taking an illegal drug (among others) should compound his sentence further.

and to whoever said that we've no right to question the professionals, well... those kind of attitudes are unhealthy and discourage progress of any kind imo.

hullaballoo

murphaph wrote:

He has every right. He's a citizen of this land and what happened today was a travesty of 'justice'. That woman is very brave for waiving her right to anonymity to highlight this outrage. One can only hope the DPP appeal this rubbish and the CONVICTED RAPIST gets what's due to him, at a minimum a custodial sentence!

My point is plainly that none of us know what extenuating circumstances were involved here.

I'm not for a minute naive enough to think that the judge thought, "nah, I don't think rapists should go to gaol". There are rules and regulations that govern judicial practice in this regard, and if there's a fault there, the DPP will appeal the decision.

You can't argue that someone who has devoted years of service to the country in a judicial aspect and as a barrister before that, and whose only livelihood is his practice as a lawyer should be disrobed because you don't agree with a sentence that he passed in a case about which you know nothing. To do such is folly in the highest regard.

cast_iron

hullaball&#250 wrote:

My point is plainly that none of us know what extenuating circumstances were involved here.

Not entirely correct. Yes, we were not there for all the trial, but the facts are not secret - the media do and have reported them. Now, unless they are being INCREDIBLY biased, I don't see any great merit in the extenuating circumstances reported to the public.

It actually appears the judge was using a previous "precedent" as justification. If one was to be cynical (which we shouldn't be with regards to judges), one could say he knew an appeal would probably follow with the same result.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

You can't argue that someone who has devoted years of service to the country in a judicial aspect and as a barrister before that, and whose only livelihood is his practice as a lawyer should be disrobed because you don't agree with a sentence that he passed in a case about which you know nothing. To do such is folly in the highest regard.

I don't think people should really be calling for his head either. We are well entitled to discuss what appears to be a very strange decision.

Personally, I feel all sentences are too light. Life usually = 14 odd years in jail, the 55 quoted above is sadly not correct in reality.

Simply put, I think, raping someone (even under the influence of drink/drugs) should not result in walking away from court - especially after it took a jury to convict.

Wertz

cast_iron wrote:

Personally, I feel all sentences are too light. Life usually = 14 odd years in jail, the 55 quoted above is sadly not correct in reality.

So in this country life doesn't mean life? I'll stand corrected on that so...I was pretty sure that a life sentence meant that and am positive I heard in some radio/TV piece that the judge thought that a possible 55 yr sentence (75 minus age of convict) was too long (debatable in itself). Odd.

As for calling for the judge's head; I think you have to apportion some of the blame on the appeals system that the judge was apparently trying to not run foul of...that said, any system or member of that system that would consider such a short term for a crime like rape is almost laughable, were it not so tragic.
Even still, a decision of sentencing should not be influenced by what might come after and a victim's right to justice shouldn't hinge on past decisions of a separate court. I'm sure the man knows his job....but it's not justice in anyone's eyes and that after all is what he is charged with dispensing. If he's not to blame then someone or something , is and needs fixing...

johnnyskeleton

cast_iron wrote:

Personally, I feel all sentences are too light. Life usually = 14 odd years in jail, the 55 quoted above is sadly not correct in reality.

Simply put, I think, raping someone (even under the influence of drink/drugs) should not result in walking away from court - especially after it took a jury to convict.

I think the current Minister for Justice has stated that the minimum upon which he will release a lifer is 14 years, and I think there are people on life sentences who will almost certainly die in jail.

In answer to Wertz, a life sentence does last for your whole life, but the minister can release you (and usually does) after a good few years (I think the bare minimum is about 9 for exceptional circumstances). However, if you misbehave again, even for a relatively minor offence, he can decide to lock you up and throw away the key, so to speak. This has been criticised by the European Court of Human Rights because, among other things, it is not a certain amount of time.

As for the sentence in this case, I think it is very strange for Judge Carney who, if anything, likes his reputation as a tough sentencer. I don't think he would give such a sentence to spite the court of criminal appeal. More likely, he is following the ruling that a judge should balance the mitigating factors of the offender's life against the seriousness of the offence and the aggravating circumstances. Unlike in England, we do not have any guideline decisions for sentences, and for an appeal against sentence the test is whether the judge was unduly lenient/harsh.

In my opinion, a very serious part of this offence is that it happened in her home. In addition to any possible violence and degradation in the rape, her home was violated (in the irish times article it states that she had leave her home because she was afraid).

Another aggravating factor, to my mind, is that the accused was intoxicated. Far from being an excuse, this suggests to me that he is reckless and leaves a trail of apparently random destruction.

Other factors, such as the accused not pleading guilty or if he did not show remorse don't help him very much.

So while I agree that we shouldn't rush to condem him based solely on the media reports, I find it very hard to imagine what could be said about his personal circumstances which would merit such a lenient sentence. Even if he were otherwise a saint, who helped himself up from the gutter and is generally a great guy, I still think this crime appears serious enough to warrant a prison sentence.

There are very few rape cases for which a suspended sentence is appropriate, and the sentence here certainly sticks out.

I might finally add that while RTE smugly suggested in the news article that they were the only people who cared enough about the victim to help her find justice, I think the press coverage of these things is ultimately unhelpful. The court of appeal is not going to be persuaded by public opinion, and the negative publicity could discourage other rape victims from coming forward.

Radio Mad.

I feel the issue of our judiciary is a very serious one that we must face head on, sooner rather than later. Judges hold very privileged and powerful positions in society, and seem to be unanswerable for their actions.

In my opinion rape is a particularly heinous crime that requires a very, very hefty sentence, regardless of any mitigating circumstances a judge may claim. This just isn’t happening.

Minister for Justice Michael McDowell says his hands are tied, as the Constitution stipulates that the judiciary must be free from political interference. While there is some merit in this requirement, it leaves the way wide open for judges to abuse their positions of power. This is dangerous and isn’t right or democratic.

Nothing short of a complete review and overhaul of our judicial system is now needed. The DPP and judges must be answerable for their actions. If that requires the holding of a referendum, so be it.

Judges must be made understand that they can’t just do what they want. They answer to us, the majority law-abiding people of this country. Their cosy little club must be broken up, once and for all!

filter_face

Hullaballú? Please, please don't tell me you're a law student - if you are I will be clinically depressed and will weep for the future of our legal system.

Your two responses on this thread are quite extraordinary - 'breathless arrogance', I think, is the term.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Did you have some sort of active involvement in the process ab initio?

Out of interest, was 'ab initio' meant to impress us all and hint at legal qualifications?! It would have been so much easier to ask: 'are you aware of every detail of the case?'!

But while we're on that route - did you ever hear the term 'Res Ipsa Loquitur'? No? Well, look up the meaning, and then, in relation to this trial, have a think about it.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

If not, you have no right to call for the impeachment of a professional.

Again, breathless arrogance, of the most smug kind.

Is your view that all judges are infallible, unchallengeable, unimpeachable, divine creatures who never err, and whose judgement is absolute?

If yes....oh dear. I could throw a few names at you, but the Mods would faint. But surely even you can think of a few examples that would suggest not all our judges have been so divine, nor, indeed, infallible.

And what on earth has 'professional' got to do with it? Does this confer yet more unchallengeable status on a judge, as opposed to the great unwashed, who dared to express concern at yesterday's sentencing, and their less lofty employment status?

Remember something rather important: the judge in question is the employee of the great unwashed, they pay his way, he answers to THEM. So they have EVERY right to express concern at the perverted sentence handed out to the convicted rapist.

The facts of the case, if you would trouble yourself to look them up, are really quite straightforward, as 10 of the jury agreed.

While legal niceties Paul Carney might have referred to, in relation to appeal court rulings on past verdicts, can, happily, still be dealt with, the fact is that he described the rape as being "out of character" and noted that the defendent "came from a respectable home". That is what has, quite understandably, caused the outrage.

Incidentally, the "respectable home" line that judges so often peddle, usually to explain away a woefully inadequate sentence, always amuses me. I would have thought if you were fortunate enough to come from a "respectable home" you would have less excuse for transforming in to a criminal than if you came from a troubled, broken home. But maybe "respectable" is code for something else?

hullaball&#250 wrote:

You can't argue that someone who has devoted years of service to the country in a judicial aspect and as a barrister before that, and whose only livelihood is his practice as a lawyer should be disrobed because you don't agree with a sentence that he passed in a case about which you know nothing. To do such is folly in the highest regard.

This, actually, was quite hilarious. In fact, I half assumed you were trying to be amusing.

"...devoted years of service to the country in a judicial aspect and as a barrister before that"?

Are you really serious?

Are these "devoted years of service" done on a voluntary basis?! Do these poor creatures work for nothing?!

GIVE ME A BREAK!

All I can think of is Charlie's "I did the state some service..."!!!!

You might as well talk of McDonald's "devoted years of service" to the planet, like they give burgers away for free!

"..........whose only livelihood is his practice as a lawyer"?!

God love him! You mean, he doesn't sell second hand clothes on Ebay to keep the wolf from his door?!

Get a grip of yourself, the legal profession is no different to any other profession, except for the vulgar money its practitioners earn. It's made up of the good, the bad and the ugly, the competent and the incompetent. The law might be the law, but sentencing is a whole different ball game, hence the not-so-rare altering of sentences by appeal courts. So spare me, and the rest of us, this infallible, unchallengeable, unimpeachable rubbish. You'll discover, if you make it to the bar, that you're anything but infallible, unchallengeable and unimpeachable.

Villain

Well I hope Paul Carney has slept soundly in his bed the few last nights because I doubt Mary Shannon did, this decision is just awful, not only has a rapist walked free from court but the perception that this has given will result in even less women reporting Rape imo.

If thats the law the law's an ass!

lostexpectation

oh it out of character apparently, would win an appeal? that's lame, I bet he rich and has a job so he's less guilty of the rape?

if the other guy actually served a full 15yrs I'd be happy, I know he won't though.



what can be done about it now though,

Zombrex

While Justice Paul Carney is one of the most senior judges in the country, and often handles rape and murder cases so one would assume (hope) he knows what he is doing, it is still very hard to think of any explination for why this guy was let of with such a light sentence.

Is the judge's ruling accessible to the public, is it possible to read his justification (do judges even do that in real life or is it just in something like Ally MacBeal?)

Seth Brundle

hullaball&#250 wrote:

If not, you have no right to call for the impeachment of a professional.

Who does then?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

In answer to Wertz, a life sentence does last for your whole life, but the minister can release you (and usually does) after a good few years (I think the bare minimum is about 9 for exceptional circumstances). However, if you misbehave again, even for a relatively minor offence, he can decide to lock you up and throw away the key, so to speak. This has been criticised by the European Court of Human Rights because, among other things, it is not a certain amount of time.

I thought the minister had no involvement in all of this. I thought it was down to an independant board. If Im wrong then what makes the minister qualified to decide this?

hullaball&#250 wrote:

You can't argue that someone who has devoted years of service to the country in a judicial aspect and as a barrister before that, and whose only livelihood is his practice as a lawyer should be disrobed because you don't agree with a sentence that he passed in a case about which you know nothing. To do such is folly in the highest regard.

Are you suggesting that the judicary are infallible? I can think of judges who have made wrong decisions before (both personally and professionally!)!

The decision made yesterday is typical of our system where the victim gets shat upon! The judge seemingly considered the defendants situation ("He was of good character" :rolleyes:) but by all accounts made no consideration for the victims.

Furthermore, an outcome like this will make many others, who are unfortunate enough to go through the ordeal of rape, not report it resulting in many more rapists going free.

jhegarty

That judgement is the sort of thing that leads to "baseball bat" justice....

seamus

kbannon wrote:

Are you suggesting that the judicary are infallible? I can think of judges who have made wrong decisions before (both personally and professionally!)!

I think hulla's point is that you can't judge a person's career on one act.

Imagine an airline pilot. Flown for fourty years, no incidents. One time, he manages to burst a tyre on landing and scare the **** out of everyone on board. Someone who heard about the incident from a friend decides that the pilot should be fired. Is he right?

leninbenjamin

seamus wrote:

I think hulla's point is that you can't judge a person's career on one act.

Imagine an airline pilot. Flown for fourty years, no incidents. One time, he manages to burst a tyre on landing and scare the **** out of everyone on board. Someone who heard about the incident from a friend decides that the pilot should be fired. Is he right?

never the less we have the right to ask questions, as would the passengers on the plane above. let them present us the facts to show us how our opinions may be misguided rather than dismiss it entirely.

Rock Climber

leninbenjamin wrote:

never the less we have the right to ask questions,

Of course you do but as ALSO I see what Hullabalú was saying you don't have the right to judge on this one incident.
Law is pretty much a lot to do with precedent and looking at this,that Judge possibly said to himself I've no choice to impose what I've imposed because if I'd have been any sterner,the appeal court would have released him.

I'm thinking aswell that this judge has done what judges often do and that is,he's given a shock result to show up the politicians for not acting on a point of law that morally needs changing.

Hence you have a bad result but politicians scambling to change the law so it won't happen again,at least I hope so.

lostexpectation

People are entitled to ask questions, but should always bear in mind that Paul Carney is not some novice acting on a whim. He has presided over rape cases in the Central Criminal Court for years, is one of the most senior Judges in the country, is pretty much the judicial expert on serious sexual assault, is not known for being easy going on criminals, and I'd be reluctant to suggest he came to a decision glibly.

lostexpectation wrote:

I bet he rich and has a job so he's less guilty of the rape?

I note you start off this point with 'I bet'. Would you not agree that 'I know' is an all round better starting point, and concede that you might not know nearly as much as theJudge wholistened toall the evidence?

Judges are far from infallible, they are not above question, but hysteria and jumping to conclusions about justice for the rich is not a reasonable approach.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

is_that_so

It is also all but impossible to remove judges as the Brian Curtin case showed.
I respect Judge Carney and I do find him a very good judge but not having been anywhere near the case there are a number of issues that really puzzle me.

The defendant was found guilty of rape which as far as I understand it is a very serious crime and in 85% of cases results in a custodial sentence?

Is a guilty plea, in serious crimes like this, grounds for suspending a sentence?

What does the judge actually take account of anything beyond the courtroom? Many judges have done so over the last year or so and applied that, rightly or wrongly, to their decisions.

How does the expression "out of character" come to be used with something so serious?

po0k

I've read through this thread, searching for a post or two that contains the info I want to know.

Why was it a 3-year suspended sentence?

Where might I go to read the transcripts from the court?

Is it because the convicted rapist would be beaten to a pulp were he to go to prison?
Is he mentally deficient?
Is his family 'connected'?
Was the substance under which he was under the influence at the time of the crime cocaine by any chance?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

is_that_so

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I realised that after I posted it - it's more of a general question as guilty pleas can affect sentencing.

is_that_so

SyxPak wrote:

I've read through this thread, searching for a post or two that contains the info I want to know.

Why was it a 3-year suspended sentence?

Where might I go to read the transcripts from the court?

Is it because the convicted rapist would be beaten to a pulp were he to go to prison?
Is he mentally deficient?
Is his family 'connected'?
Was the substance under which he was under the influence at the time of the crime cocaine by any chance?

Summary here.

Villain

I think people need to be remember that full incident that took place here i.e.:

This is not a case of man meets girl in nightclub both are drunk they go back to a house and start kissing, man makes a move to have sex and woman says no but man continues to rape woman.

Now that is still rape and should carry a sentence.

What happened here:

Woman is asleep in bed, man carries out a criminal act of breaking and entry and rapes woman in her bed.

Now first of all there is the offence of breaking and entry which people don't seem to mentioning then you have the rape. So this isn't a case of one incident of rape where there may have been some confusion in the mans head about whether it was concensual or not, he committed two crimes here not one and Carney got it wrong this man should be locked up today.

daveirl

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Did someone say this? I'd share your annoyance if someone posted this. Got a link?

You wanted hypothetcial? If both parties consent to sex, the parties engage in intercourse and before the man ejaculates his partner suddenly realises this is not appropriate and indicates a change of mind, but the man continues and ejaculates. Jail time? If a man can't remember, there is no physical evidence of forced sexual intercourse, and the only issue is whether there was full informed consent? How would you decide that?

jawlie

I think the age old Irish game of rushing to judgement without having heard the evidence is great fun. Especially when we can throw in a little moral indignation and dust off our holier than thou attitudes.

Personally, i think we all should adopt the official position of the Sun Newspaper which seems to be "String em up it's the only language they understand" on every issue from mass murder to returning your dvd rental a day late.

How someone can pretend to think they know more, than the judge, about the circumstances surrounding this, or any, case, beggars belief.

Villain

Jawlie I know that

A: The accused ganied illegal entry into the victims house
B: A jury found him guilty of rape
C: The Judge let him walk free by suspending his sentence of only 3 years.

Is there anything else I need to know?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cast_iron

Rock Climber wrote:

Law is pretty much a lot to do with precedent and looking at this,that Judge possibly said to himself I've no choice to impose what I've imposed because if I'd have been any sterner,the appeal court would have released him.

Yes, and he would be right in doing that.

Rock Climber wrote:

I'm thinking aswell that this judge has done what judges often do and that is,he's given a shock result to show up the politicians for not acting on a point of law that morally needs changing.

If so, that's a disgrace, and it's certainly not the justice the victim of this crime and any other one where the judge does this deserves. In no circumstance should that be an accepted way for judges to voice their disquiet with the current law.

Deleted User wrote:

Judges are far from infallible, they are not above question,

True, but to apply a subtle difference: surely there should be assumption that the judges decisions should be seen to be separate from public opinion/hysteria and the political system. The judges job is to apply the law of the land fairly and evenly across the board, based ONLY on the facts of the case and the current law. It's the cornerstone of all justice systems in the democratic world, and anything else would make it a farce.

So, their decisions should be seen infallible and above question, even if they themselves are not.
That's why this case is all the more controversial.

leninbenjamin

what's the previous ruling by the appeals court that this sentence was based on? all i see are passing references, nothing specific.

Nevyn

SyxPak wrote:

I've read through this thread, searching for a post or two that contains the info I want to know.

The sententces take into consideration a range of factors about the persona foudn guilty, previous records and past behaviour and the impact on the witness.

The judge when handing down the sentence made reference that it could and would be apealed, almost as if by passing such a sentecne he was garenteed for the final ruling on it not be a matter he will have ruled on in finality.

It could well be a political move by the judge to have the laws in reguards to sentencing tightned and tidied up.

walshb

Was it Paul Carney who allowed this man to walk free, the same Carney who was involved in an after hours incident at the shelbourne hotel looking for more booze a number of years back. He said he would not feel comfortable imprisoning a man who 'acted out of character'. This man claims he was high on booze at the time of the incident, so why is a judge Like Carney residing over cases involving rape and alcohol?. Surely this can not be tolerated

Mr.Nice Guy

This decision is an absolute travesty.

My thoughts and prayers are with the woman. I am appalled at the leniency of this sentence, if you can call it one.

The judge responsible for this is a disgrace.

hullaballoo

filter_face wrote:

Hullaballú? Please, please don't tell me you're a law student - if you are I will be clinically depressed and will weep for the future of our legal system.

Not that it's any of your business what I do, I am a law student. And I'm a damned good one too.

Your two responses on this thread are quite extraordinary - 'breathless arrogance', I think, is the term.

Yes, quite.

Out of interest, was 'ab initio' meant to impress us all and hint at legal qualifications?!

No, it wasn't. I write like that all the time. Yesterday, I was fond of the turn of phrase "ab initio"; today, it's "who are you?"

But while we're on that route - did you ever hear the term 'Res Ipsa Loquitur'? No? Well, look up the meaning, and then, in relation to this trial, have a think about it.

Yeah, I've heard of it once or twice. It's a major part of the law of torts. It doesn't have any application to the criminal law whatsoever though. In fact, I can't see what bearing res ipsa loquitur would have on this case, even if it had anything to do with the criminal law: it's about the standard of proof in negligence.

Again, breathless arrogance, of the most smug kind.

Is your view that all judges are infallible, unchallengeable, unimpeachable, divine creatures who never err, and whose judgement is absolute?

If yes....oh dear. I could throw a few names at you, but the Mods would faint. But surely even you can think of a few examples that would suggest not all our judges have been so divine, nor, indeed, infallible.

Well, you certainly did a lot of reading between the lines there. I don't recall ever having said that I view judges as anything other than judges.

Remember something rather important: the judge in question is the employee of the great unwashed, they pay his way, he answers to THEM.

Remember that? Thanks for the advice. Here, I'll return the favour: forget it! It's rubbish. The state does pay judges' wages all right, but that's nothing to do with popular accountability. It's the elected government's job to be accountable to the public, and the reason for a separate judicial body is precisely so that judges won't yield to political persuasion.

As it happens, most judges do yield to politics in practice. None of that is relevant, but I feel like I've a right to reply considering you've attacked me so outright, and put words in my mouth.

While legal niceties Paul Carney might have referred to...But maybe "respectable" is code for something else?

This has nothing to do with my point at all, so I have to assume (as you've given me no other choice) that you have taken a logical leap: you think that because I don't think people should be baying for Carney's blood, that I agree with the sentence he passed? Nonsense of course, I don't think anyone in their right mind would agree that someone convicted of this manner of offence should be allowed walk free.

My point is clear enough: if you don't know the facts of the case and the reason behind the sentence, then you shouldn't be so quick to judge a man, who in this case, perpetually makes good solid decisions and has put a lot of his life into the criminal justice system.

This, actually, was quite hilarious...You'll discover, if you make it to the bar, that you're anything but infallible, unchallengeable and unimpeachable.

Ok, I'll just skip past a lot of that drivel, because I've already dealt with most of it. I just want to address one last popular fallacy that you've brought up here.

Judges and lawyers don't all make as much money as people think. It's true, a lot of tribunal lawyers and a good few Senior Counsel make healthy sums of money. The reality of the situation is that most barristers don't really make money at all. Half of them have to leave the profession because they cannot support themselves, and most of the rest make modest incomes.

Judges don't take up their positions on the bench because of the money either. It's not that great. Anyway, their earnings have nothing to do with it either. If you take a judge's robes away because you don't agree with one out of thousands of sentences he's passed down, you are leaving him with nothing. Someone who has been engrossed in the law for all of their adult lives does not have much to fall back on.

That's a humane issue, rather than a legal one. My feeling on this is that many people are too quick to hang people who make mistakes in their professional lives, just because it's in the public eye.

...Actually, seamus summed up the nub of my posts fairly well. So you just could have read that.

walshb

Look mate, the bottom line is that for the most part, judges in this country are not actually in touch with reality and do not live in the real world or experience pain and suffering like the victims who come ebefore them.
And it's their absolute arrogance that allows them a free reign to rule, answerable to nobody. Just take the drug sentencing here. It is hardly ever implemented and nobody is held accountable. Who is in charge of who I ask?

Carney was not a fit judge to be residing over a case where alcohol was involved as his record speaks for itself. The lack of credibility is astounding.
The Shelbourne hotel incident is well documented and should disqualify the man from residing over cases involving serious crime and alcohol.
Was he the judge who handed down a 5 year suspended sentence to the army ranger who butchered an 18 month old baby by slitting its throat with a swiss army knife and then claimed that it was the drink that made him do it and Carney went along with this?

lostexpectation

Deleted User wrote:

I note you start off this point with 'I bet'. Would you not agree that 'I know' is an all round better starting point, and concede that you might not know nearly as much as theJudge wholistened toall the evidence?

Judges are far from infallible, they are not above question, but hysteria and jumping to conclusions about justice for the rich is not a reasonable approach.

until I get better explaination I'l be happy to presume that, the judge made a speech because he knew the result would be questioned and publicised
the only explaination was the 'it was out of character' which must mean something.

I don't care if your the pope you get jail time for rape!

the women waived her right to anonyminty and went on live national radio and still not even her or anybody else knows why he didn't give a jail sentence? he said go read the case law? well gee thanks judge for half explaining yourself, somebody made the point elsewhere that surely the judge should apply the law and deal with the appeal when it comes.

so your lawyerly and don't jump to conclusions types can hold your horses until he actually gives a proper explaination for such a sentence.

the only other thing I read was there might has been something about him not actually finished the act? that she pushed him off.

mike65

Another Carney classic

A man who made pornographic photographs of a girl he sexually assaulted was jailed today for five years in Dublin.

In sentencing Robert Rammage at the Central Criminal Court, Mr Justice Paul Carney described the pictures as "appallingly shocking".

Rammage (67) had previously pleaded guilty to one count of oral rape, one of making 134 photographs of child pornography, and 14 of sexually assaulting a young girl on dates from June 2002 to May 2005 at a Dublin address.

In mitigation, Giollaiosa O Lideadha SC said his client wanted to express his remorse and apologise to his victim. He added that Rammage spared the girl having to give evidence at a trial by pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity and stressed that the photographs made were for his own gratification and not distributed in any way.

"From a very early stage and throughout he maintained a position not to put the victim through a trial," he said. Rammage, originally from Scotland, lived in Belfast for more than 30 years before moving to Dublin in 1997.

The court heard the defendant, from The Tramway, Spa Road, Inchicore, Dublin, had made a suicide attempt while on remand at Cloverhill Prison and was treated at Tallaght Hospital.

Mr Justice Carney told Mr O Lideadha he was totally ignoring the suicide attempt when sentencing. He jailed Rammage for six years in Arbour Hill Prison for the rape and five years each for the charges of making photographs and sexual assault.

The sentences will run concurrently, with the final year of the six year sentence suspended. The judge ordered that Rammage also has five years post prison supervision and be registered as a sex offender. His sentence was backdated to August 8, 2006, when he was remanded in custody.

"I take account of the affect on the vicim," said Judge Carney. "I'm also required to take account of the plea of guilty, the fact he has co-operated and the fact he was no previous convictions."

Carney also allowed the victim impact statement by Majella Holohan (Middelton child-killer case) which contained additional evidence, to be read out in court.

Mike.

hullaballoo

lostexpectation wrote:

until I get better explaination I'l be happy to presume that, the judge made a speech because he knew the result would be questioned and publicised

That just about sums up exactly what I think of the sentence.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but I think the idea of the sentence was to give the Court of Criminal Appeal food for thought. As he mentioned, the judge felt that a more stringent sentence might be overruled by the appellate court.

Naturally, the DPP will appeal the decision, and will be granted leave to appeal. Once this happens, the Court of Criminal Appeal will have their hands tied.

Dontico

soem people say things like "oh but irelands crime level is very low compared to other countries". try explaining that to rape victims. rape victims dont really care how low crime levels are.

i wish there was a party demanding tuffer sentances for rapists. oh wait there is. Fine Gael.

hullaballoo

Actually, there's a new criminal law bill that McDowell is rushing through the Dáil at the moment which contains provisions in this regard. It should be law by next week. It's a shambles, of course, but what do we care. Just lock people who commit crimes up and throw away the key. That's what I say.