Wayne O Donoghue Released Today

Maximilian

Look folks, can we limit this particular thread to the legal aspects of the matter.

If you have personal views on the rights or wrongs, if you want to organise a vigilante posse, marry Wayne or indeed if you have any other inclinations which lean on the Rabble-Rabble side of things, can you post on the AH thread instead. Lazy people can find it here.

Also we can't have people posting the same comments in both threads. I'm pointing at you, Eire 4-Eve.

Carolus Magnus

The case unfortunately isn't conducive to much legal wrangling as the sentence was completely above board and Carney has done nothing legally wrong, exercising as he did his judicial powers of discretion in sentencing. Not much more is left to drag out of this beastly (i.e. overblown and sensationalised) case except emotive pulling of heart strings. It is also a fact that Majella Holohan went off the record in her victim impact statement and mentioned findings not admitted to the book of evidence.

What might be of interest is the angle the forthcoming libel suits will be pursued from. I for one would like to read learned opinions on that.

hullaballoo

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

The case unfortunately isn't conducive to much legal wrangling as the sentence was completely above board and Carney has done nothing legally wrong, exercising as he did his judicial powers of discretion in sentencing. Not much more is left to drag out of this beastly case except emotive pulling of heart strings. It is also a fact that Majella Holohan went off the record in her victim impact statement and mentioned findings not admitted to the book of evidence.

What might be of interest is the angle the forthcoming libel suits will be pursued from. I for one would like to read learned opinions on that.

Just make sure they're your legal heart-strings, in that case.

Carolus Magnus

That indeed, was/is my point. Tugging of heartsrings is beside the point in a thread like this, in a folder like this, and I would welcome some legal eagles (or chicks for that matter ¬_¬) enlightening us about what happens next.

Legally speaking, the case has been and gone, the sentence served and that's that. I'd prefer honestly if Justice Paul Carney had the last word on that. The leniency of the sentence; re:yes/no/castrate the bugger is a purely emotional debate and is the only one being engaged in at present.

lbourkey

sickpuppy wrote: »

Totally agree with ak 47 the sentencing in this country is ajoke.
I hope that man does the only decent thing now which is suicide.
How he could live with himself after what he done i dont know.
H e will be probably attacked as soon a shes away from the media glare.

What kind of a child are you? How dare you berate this young man - who has served his sentence, given to him by a judge and jury who had much more information than you on the case, and then use terms like suicide in such a cavalier way. You are as bad as the scum-ridden tabloid press, intent on ruining yet more lives in this tragic case. I agree that that the Houlihans will never accept any outcome as being a valid answer to the pain they have suffered but we are human beings and we must surely try to understand that unfortunate events occur - have you thought about how you would feel if Wayne was your teenage son, had made a huge error whilst fighting/playing with his younger friend and then reacted, naturally enough for a man of his age with pure panic? Give it a rest all of you right wing idiots and remember that life is not black and white.

johnnyskeleton

Mrs Roy Keane wrote: »

MANSLAUGHTER - ...

I don't know what actually happened between Wayne and Robert which resulted in Robert's death only they know so we have only have Wayne's testimony and the evidence but Wayne actions after the killing of Robert were premeditated he knew what he was doing. I cant comprehend what i would do in that situation and hope i would never be in that situation but i think you would call an ambulance. In my opinion 3 years is way to short a term for this crime. Wayne is young and he can still get on with his life while Robert is death.

Thanks for the definition of manslaughter but I want to know why you think 4 years is not justified for this offence.

The evidence as decided by the jury amounts to this:
(a) he unlawfully caused the death of Robert Holohan
(b) he did not intend to cause the death of Robert Holohan
(c) it is essentially a culpable accident.

The nearest comparisons, in my view, would be dangerous driving causing death, or cases where parents/childminders accidentally cause a child's death. Sentences for those offences also vary greatly depending on the circumstances, but in general the sentence would be nowhere near the sentence that would be imposed in the more serious manslaughter cases.

What aggravtes this case is that he attempted to dispose of the body, to "get away with it" and to avoid capture.

In mitigation he has no previous convictions, is unlikely to reoffend, he ultimately co-operated with the gardai and he has expressed remorse which, notwithstanding the Holohan's refusal to accept it, would appear to most objective observers to be genuine. As regards his immediate reaction to the death, it appears that he initially tried to revive Robert Holohan, but when this didn't work he panicked.

It would seem that the jury accepted (implicitly at least) that he did genuinely panic afterwards and that this, and not malice was the reason for the coverup.

So looking at the reasons behind sentencing, there is the need to punish the offender, and a 4 year prison sentence is a severe punishment no matter what way you look at it. To say otherwise is, in my view, to ignore the reality of prison and instead look at it in an abstract and unrealistic way (like saying "I want him to rot in hell for ever and ever" etc).

As regards deterrence, there is a lesser need to mark the offence as it is a once off (as opposed to, for example, drugs offences, where there is the need to deter the offender from re-offending and the need to send a message that others should not get involved in drugs).

There is no great preventative need to give a higher sentence as he is seriously unlikely to commit further offences.

Again, there is little need to rehabilitate him as this seems to be a once off offence.

Which leaves Retribution - the idea of an eye for an eye. This is more of a passionate response, but in some cases it forms part of the sentence policy. For example, in violent / sexual assault cases, where the victim's life has been destroyed or seriously damaged by the offender, the court will often (and quite rightly) take the views of the victim into consideration. However, the difficulty here, and it appears to be the heart of the problem with a lot of people's criticisms of the sentence, is that there was no malice or intention to kill on Wayne O'Donoghue's part.

With the greatest respect, it seems to be easier for people to believe that he is an evil killer, monster or child abuser, when the reality (as was found by the jury) is that it was an accident, and there but for fortune go you and I.

It would be nice to have someone to blame, it would be great to say that the evidence that wasn't admitted was a travesty of justice, but the reality is that the sentence marks the level of blameworthiness on Wayne O'Donoghue's part, coupled with the other factors in the case, and the evidence wasn't admitted because it was, in all liklihood, wrong and highly misleading.

Finally, I don't think there is any reality to him just getting on with his life. This will undoubtedly haunt him forever, and he can probably never have a normal life in Ireland (or indeed anywhere) ever again. But that aside, what would you have him do? Sit in a prison cell forever? What would that achieve, what possible reason is there to do that (and waste another person's life and millions of euro in taxpayers money)?

dramaqueen

I have to say I'm a little horrified at the way people have been talking in this thread.

- He should be killed, commit suicide executed etc.

Personally I think the courts did their job and that's why we have a legal system. They make the unemotional call, justice and all that. It was a horrible case that captured the nations attention like no other in recent times. The guy made a mistake and dealt with it stupidly. The boys parents will never forgive him and never get over it and that's their right. But I can only imagine how bad prison was for Wayne, with the publicity the case received and the sexual angle that the mother and the press hinted at.
I feel sorry for all involved and hope that the press and others stop sensationalising the situation. The guy did the time that the courts required of him. His right is now to try to rebuild his life.

AckwelFoley

Wayne does not fit the profile of somone that will kill again.

People don't go on death row for manslaughter. Would you care to elaborate to all of us how the sum of the evidence in the Holohan case would translate to a first degree murder charge for O'Donoghue in the United States? You can try, I'd like to see you construct the legal argument for it.

Correct

However his sentence was ludacrisly light.

In the US depending on which state you were sentenced, you can receive from 15 - 65 years for this type crime

johnnyskeleton

snyper wrote: »

In the US depending on which state you were sentenced, you can receive from 15 - 65 years for this type crime

A quick search in google revealed many sentences under 15 years for manslaughter, so I'm going to have to call shenanigans on you.

Here's 100 days for manslaution arising out of a road traffic accident. The reason I think this is a better analogy than what you might call the "not quite murder" type manslaughter cases is that both were accidents.

Lemming

snyper wrote: »

However his sentence was ludacrisly light.

In the US depending on which state you were sentenced, you can receive from 15 - 65 years for this type crime

Why are people harping on about what you could or could not possibly be handed as a sentence in another country? This is a legal discussion of an offense and subsequent trial that occurred in Ireland.

Is there anybody on boards.ie who actually has a working knowledge of both US law at both State & Federal levels? Bit of a moot point anyway ....

Trojan911

My thoughts & opinions are,

Four years is not an adequate sentance for the taking of a life in any case not just this one. Having it knocked down to three is a bigger insult to the victims family. (I don't agree with remission for good behaviour). My thoughts would be ten years imprisonment.

I am curious as to why further sentencing was not imposed for the waste of police time in the search afterwards & I believe an offence of preventing a christian burial is also an offence (open to correction).

Whatever the case is O'Donaghue will have to live with this terrible deed he did.

Having worked in this type of environment myself I have huge reservations on the whole case & believe the DPP was correct to go for a murder upgrade. The verdict the jury returned was the wrong guilty verdict in my opinion.

However the courts have ruled & we have no choice but to go along with its ruling.

Lemming

Trojan911 wrote: »

My thoughts & opinions are,

Four years is not an adequate sentance for the taking of a life in any case not just this one. Having it knocked down to three is a bigger insult to the victims family. (I don't agree with remission for good behaviour). My thoughts would be ten years imprisonment.

This might sound cold and clinical, but sentencing is not provided to appease the feelings of a victim or their family. In any case, making statements about 4 years fo the taking of a life in any case makes for stupidly dangerous precedent.

Having worked in this type of environment myself I have huge reservations on the whole case & believe the DPP was correct to go for a murder upgrade. The verdict the jury returned was the wrong guilty verdict in my opinion.

Well, he was judged by a jury of his peers. So your opinion or my opinion amount to precisely squat as to what they as a collective group should or should not have thought. That's kind of the whole point of trial by jury; judgement by peer on the evidence presented.

Trojan911

Lemming wrote: »

Well, he was judged by a jury of his peers. So your opinion or my opinion amount to precisely squat as to what they as a collective group should or should not have thought. That's kind of the whole point of trial by jury; judgement by peer on the evidence presented.

Like I said.

Trojan911 wrote:

However the courts have ruled & we have no choice but to go along with its ruling.

lizann

I feel for the Holohan family and also the O Donoghue family as both families have been destroyed by this.

I have no sympathy what so ever for Wayne.

While the killing may have been ruled accidential "horseplay" and he was charged with manslaughter and served 3 years his actions after the killing the cover up and disposal of the body other charges should have been brought against him.

BTW is it the longer a body is not discovered certain evidence decays or is more harder to find

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]CC0019/05
The High Court
The Central Criminal Court
Mr Justice Carney
Tuesday, 24 January 2006
DPP v WAYNE O'DONOGHUE

MR JUSTICE CARNEY: I want to say unequivocally at the outset that I am dealing with a manslaughter and not with a cover-up. A manslaughter has been described as the most elastic of crimes because the penalty can range from a suspended sentence to one of life imprisonment. It is now my function to select a punishment at or between these extremes and explain my reasons to the nation and to the Holohan family as best I can. I will be doing so on the basis of the evidence presented in open court and no other consideration.

In this case, evidence was given by pathologists on each side. For the prosecution evidence was given by the State Pathologist, Dr Marie Cassidy, and for the defence evidence was given by the Chief Pathologist of Northern Ireland, Professor Crane. They were in broad agreement with some difference in emphasis. The evidence of both pathologists was to the effect that the injuries on Robert's body were light.

I find of particular significance that Professor Crane went on to say that the injuries were consistent with those which resulted from a restraining technique employed by several police forces in the United States. When it became apparent that this technique was causing unexpected deaths, its authorised use was terminated. This evidence suggests to me that the injuries we are concerned with here were at the horseplay end of the scale.

After the death, the cover-up was appalling. There can be no excusing what was done. There can be no mitigating of what was done. The cover-up caused incredible grief and distress to the Holohan family. It permitted of the body being mutilated by animals, it tied up the emergency services of the State over a protracted period and caused the people of Ireland as a whole to join in the Holohans' grief. It cannot be dismissed as being due to panic, by reason of the calculation and deliberation involved.

I am not punishing the accused expressly in respect of the cover-up, although it comes into play as part of the impact on the victims and I take it into account in that regard. I must bear in mind, however, that it could have formed the basis of substantive charges and they were not laid.[/FONT]

Eire 4Ever

Court adjourns application in libel case
16 January 2008

By Vivion Kilfeather
THE High Court yesterday adjourned for three weeks an application for discovery of documents in an action for libel brought by Wayne O’Donoghue, the 23-year-old engineering student who was convicted of the manslaughter of Midleton schoolboy Robert Holohan.
Mr O’Donoghue is due to be released from the Midlands Prison today after serving three years of a four-year sentence for killing the 11-year-old boy on January 4, 2005, in Midleton, Co Cork.

As a result of some of the media coverage of the sentencing hearing, Mr O’Donoghue issued proceedings for libel against a number of outlets, including TV3.

Yesterday, TV3 Television Network Ltd made an application before Master of the High Court Edmund Honohan SC for discovery of documents from Mr O’Donoghue in advance of the libel trial. The documents are to be used in the TV company’s defence.

The application was adjourned after Mr Honohan was told Mr O’Donoghue’s legal advisers were likely to be in a position to agree discovery within weeks.

Mr Honohan adjourned the application to February 5.

Mr O’Donoghue’s libel action arises out of questions raised by Robert’s mother Majella during her victim-impact statement at the sentencing hearing when she queried why semen was found on her son’s body.

There had been no reference at any stage to DNA forensic material during the 10-day trial and Mr O’Donoghue’s lawyers have repeatedly insisted that the DNA involved was not his.

Mr O’Donoghue, who claims his reputation was damaged by media coverage suggesting sexual impropriety on his part towards Robert, also has defamation actions pending against the Sun, the Sunday World, Ireland on Sunday and the Evening Herald.

If they proceed, it could mean that Mr O’Donoghue will have to give evidence and be open to cross-examination. It is also possible however that he would not take the stand and rely on other witnesses to give evidence of any alleged libel.

His solicitor, Frank Buttimer, is determined that the libel actions should not be turned into a re-run of the murder trial.

He said the five High Court actions are “aimed at vindicating Wayne O’Donoghue’s good name which has been damaged by false allegations and the onus of proof will be on the media outlets to prove these allegations”.

Mr O’Donoghue is expected to call a number of experts to give evidence disputing the reliability of the forensic tests that initially formed part of the Garda case

johnnyskeleton

Wow. A discovery motion in front of the master of the High Court. That's real front page news.

hullaballoo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Wow. A discovery motion in front of the master of the High Court. That's real front page news.

I feel disgusting that I actually laughed at that.

johnnyskeleton

hullaballú wrote: »

I feel disgusting that I actually laughed at that.

I have that effect on people.

Tom Young

Funnily enough, so do I.

Eire 4Ever

Trojan911 wrote: »

My thoughts & opinions are,

Four years is not an adequate sentance for the taking of a life in any case not just this one. Having it knocked down to three is a bigger insult to the victims family. (I don't agree with remission for good behaviour). My thoughts would be ten years imprisonment.

I am curious as to why further sentencing was not imposed for the waste of police time in the search afterwards & I believe an offence of preventing a christian burial is also an offence (open to correction).

Whatever the case is O'Donaghue will have to live with this terrible deed he did.

Having worked in this type of environment myself I have huge reservations on the whole case & believe the DPP was correct to go for a murder upgrade. The verdict the jury returned was the wrong guilty verdict in my opinion.

However the courts have ruled & we have no choice but to go along with its ruling.

Can other charges be brought against Wayne now for his actions after the manslaughter of Robert?

seamus

Eire, I've edited your post. Wayne was convicted of manslaughter.

Trojan911

Eire 4Ever wrote: »

Can other charges be brought against Wayne now for his actions after the manslaughter of Robert?

I would say no as they had their opertunity to do so at the time (open to correction).

Mrs Roy Keane

Eire 4Ever wrote: »

Can other charges be brought against Wayne now for his actions after the manslaughter of Robert?

Yes i'm curious to that also

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/an...y-1269610.html

Forgiveness can't be obligatory
No one wants the O'Donoghues hounded, but people can withhold absolution from Wayne, says Eilis O'Hanlon

Sunday January 20 2008


HERE they come, the small army of legalistic nitpickers and pettifoggers, dancing around after Wayne O'Donoghue as he's released from the Midlands Prison after serving three minutes -- sorry, years -- for the manslaughter of schoolboy Robert Holohan, all clambering over one another in their race to insist that he has paid his debt to society and should therefore be given every indulgence and the benefit of every doubt as he settles down to his new life.


Where do they learn to talk like this? Is there some night class they attend at which every ounce of ordinary feeling is squeezed out of them, drop by drop, and gradually replaced with the desiccated dust of pedantry? Some brainwashing machine they're hooked up to which asset-strips their vocabulary of all those words and phrases which make communication on a human level possible, leaving language as nothing more than the cold tools of logical Law Society analysis? Paid his debt to society, indeed.

"Society" doesn't have anything to do with it. What we should be talking about here is a dead child and a devastated family. The State, in all its formal majesty, may be satisfied with whatever meagre penance was paid by O'Donoghue, but that doesn't mean those who beg to differ have to doff the cap in deference to our superiors and agree that all's now right with the world. We can still think the whole thing stinks. We can still think O'Donoghue got off lightly and that the memory of Robert Holohan has been horribly traduced.

Anger isn't always a bad thing. Retribution is a bad thing, but when the legal eagles and their media parrots deliberately conflate all feelings of anger at the workings of the law with some primitive thirst for bloody vengeance, they're pulling off the oldest rhetorical con trick in the book. They're shooting down arguments which have not even been made.

Nobody in their right mind wants the O'Donoghue family hounded by vindictive mobs, like Frankenstein's monster surrounded by torch-bearing villagers. They're just not in the mood to be fobbed off with patronising mantras about the law of the land having spoken and how that should be the end of it. It might be the last word of the law, but it shouldn't be the end of speaking freely about what we think of it. The right not to agree with the law is as important as the law itself.

The Irish Times editorial went even further following Wayne O'Donoghue's release, quoting Jesus on the subject of forgiveness. Of all the sly sleights of hand, that one takes the biscuit. Bland talk of paying one's debt to society is bad enough without bringing divine forgiveness into the equation. Forgiveness is an entirely personal matter, and if victims say "never, never, never" to it then that's their absolute right, and we should respect them and defend their right not to forgive to our last breath.

Making vulnerable and broken people feel inadequate because they don't have it in them to forgive those who have violated them and their families -- whatever forgiveness even means in such a context -- is the worst form of emotional bullying.

Forgiveness is not obligatory. There are times when the urge to forgive so readily could even be construed as unhealthy -- making it seem as if there is no act of wickedness which cannot be undone by therapeutic acts of symbolic catharsis.

If it happens at all, forgiveness should follow proper punishment, not be a replacement for it. And when the punishment is generally felt not to have been sufficient, then talk of forgiveness is self-indulgent special pleading.

The family of Robert Holohan even had to listen last week as their child's killer was repeatedly commended for his "courage" in making a statement to the waiting media outside prison.

Some might say that O'Donoghue's two-minute statement, far from being a selfless act of bravery, was, at best, the very least that could have been expected -- and at worst a meaningless and minimalist gesture.

"I feel and carry the burden of guilt for my actions each day," he says. Well, so he should. What does he want -- congratulations?

Deeper than that, there were things very wrong with O'Donoghue's statement -- though not picked up on at the time -- which do not exactly throw a glowing light on the man himself.

"I fully accept personal responsibility for all of my actions" -- again, I simply don't see how accepting responsibility should be offered as some kind of generous concession to his victim's family, especially when they don't want apologies, they want answers. Saying you accept full responsibility is the easy part. Showing it is what matters.

And in that regard, what evidence are Mark and Majella Holohan meant to see of O'Donoghue's full acceptance of responsibility when he can still talk, three years later, only of "causing to them the loss of their beloved Robert".

What kind of spineless weasel words are those? By "causing to them the loss of their beloved Robert", he presumably means "killing Robert". Does someone who genuinely accepts total responsibility still refer to the death of a child in such detached terms, as if it were something which merely happened to Robert rather than something he actively did?

It's an interesting psychological point which I'm not qualified to answer, but words like that make me uneasy. That part reads like a political statement, not a human one.

There's also the not inconsiderable matter of O'Donoghue's apparent plea to be left alone. Part of accepting responsibility for terrible deeds is acknowledging that the deeds were indeed so terrible that you have lost the right, however difficult that might be to endure, to make any demands in return for your shouldering of blame. It's not a process of negotiation. You have to accept responsibility, and leave it at that, asking for nothing in return, expecting no favours, no reward, no praise, no sympathy.

Others can make the case that you should be left in peace if they wish, but somebody who truly accepts responsibility for killing a child would be wise to refrain from being so easily offended or upset. A few tabloid photographers following your car or poking their lenses at you is nothing next to a dead child.

The law is a side issue here. I'm talking about what happens in a person's own head. Morally speaking, have you truly taken full responsibility for killing a child and then hiding the poor boy's body if you're still capable of feeling affronted by intense media interest?

What's happened to your sense of priorities if your mind even works that way?

Wayne O'Donoghue was a lucky young man. He got a light sentence, and has plenty of influential voices speaking up on his behalf now that he's been released.

The least his supporters can do for Robert Holohan's family is stop trying to paint his killer as some kind of suffering martyr in his own right.

Come the day that Wayne O'Donoghue has children of his own, he'll realise who the only real victim was here.

hullaballoo

Mrs Roy Keane, I'm going to have to insist outright that you post appropriate references and citations to all articles that you post. It may seem harsh, but unless you can provide links and/or full citations, I'll have to prohibit you from posting in this forum.

The author's name is helpful, but it does not go far enough. I'll amend the charter to reflect this, as I don't think provision has been made in this instance prior to now. The point of the rule is to ensure transparency amongst other things.

Eire 4Ever

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/forgiveness-cant-be-obligatory-1269610.html

Forgiveness can't be obligatory
No one wants the O'Donoghues hounded, but people can withhold absolution from Wayne, says Eilis O'Hanlon

Sunday January 20 2008


HERE they come, the small army of legalistic nitpickers and pettifoggers, dancing around after Wayne O'Donoghue as he's released from the Midlands Prison after serving three minutes -- sorry, years -- for the manslaughter of schoolboy Robert Holohan, all clambering over one another in their race to insist that he has paid his debt to society and should therefore be given every indulgence and the benefit of every doubt as he settles down to his new life.................................................

Mrs Roy Keane

hullaballú wrote: »

Mrs Roy Keane, I'm going to have to insist outright that you post appropriate references and citations to all articles that you post. It may seem harsh, but unless you can provide links and/or full citations, I'll have to prohibit you from posting in this forum.

The author's name is helpful, but it does not go far enough. I'll amend the charter to reflect this, as I don't think provision has been made in this instance prior to now. The point of the rule is to ensure transparency amongst other things.

Apologises post amended

johnnyskeleton

Eire 4Ever wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/forgiveness-cant-be-obligatory-1269610.html

Forgiveness can't be obligatory
No one wants the O'Donoghues hounded, but people can withhold absolution from Wayne, says Eilis O'Hanlon

Sunday January 20 2008


HERE they come, the small army of legalistic nitpickers and pettifoggers, dancing around after Wayne O'Donoghue as he's released from the Midlands Prison after serving three minutes -- sorry, years -- for the manslaughter of schoolboy Robert Holohan, all clambering over one another in their race to insist that he has paid his debt to society and should therefore be given every indulgence and the benefit of every doubt as he settles down to his new life.................................................

You were slated in After Hours for referring to this point - don't expect posteres to suggest anything else here. State why why you think the senetence was lenient, based on legal principles, and then you will get a rational discussion. Keep repeating that you have an irrational response to the sentence, and you will only be ignored.