Kylmore Road Hit & Run Verdict.

AlekSmart

Some interesting questions raised by this verdict.

Certainly I for one can only imagine the sense of loss and despondency felt by the French families who have come fact to face with a very vivid depiction of how the Irish justice "System" operates.

I for one feel that the entire Judicial procedure now revolves around eminent legal personages from both "sides" joining together to mitigate the effects of the original crime on the perpretator.

The victims,and their surviving relatives merit no consideration whatever from the Irish Judicial System.

Judge Katherine Delahunt`s summing up at sentencing was a masterclass in outlining the various problems faced by the guilty party and his families.
The Judge met all of the parameters required by the Irish States system in making it quite clear to everybody,both native and foreign,that our Criminal Legal system will ensure that some excuse or mitigation will be found somewhere to ensure a Judge will never have to impose a maximum sentence or anything like it.

I would be interested in hearing her logical reasoning for imposing a 15 year driving ban on a man who already has 7 previous convictions for Dangerous Driving,3 Convictions for Drunken Driving and a pre-existing 20 year driving ban which was little importance to him as he killed these two women.

Its interesting to note that the convict refused to cooperate with the Gardai in relation to supplying the necessary samples for analysis and even supplied false details at the scene,attempting to implicate some other doubtlessly innocent individual in his deeds.

The convict admits to consuming 14 Cans of Cider and a Bottle of Whiskey before driving off to kill the two women.

Judge Delahunt had 10 year maxima at her disposal,yet she managed to find mechanisms to avoid this imposition.
The Judge also resorts to the use of concurrent sentencing for the associated "lesser" convictions.
Without having to listen to arcane legal reasoning,can some enlightened individual explain why the Judge can roll-up offences which are serious in themselves and impose a far lesser sentence for the job lot.

Reading the newspaper accounts today only serves to fill me with despondency.
I feel sorry for the families of the two dead women.
I feel sorry for those Gardai and Ambulance crews and those whos lives were most likely affected by merely being witnesses to this crime.

Judge Delahunts sentencing should be open to immediate challenge from the DPP and at the very least the Irish State owes the memory and families a moral duty to pursue this case further.

Perhaps most importantly the case outlines why the ENTIRE Criminal Judiciary must be immediately called to account for their operation of a system which is SUPPOSED to protect all those who are legally entitled to that protection,including visitors.
The policy as outlined by Judge Delahunt is very definitely skewed viciously in favour of those such as the convict in this case and those who have suffered by his actions are left totally adrift and at the mercy of his followers.

A sad day for Irish Justice ?....Yes I feel it most certainly was

seamus

Good post, I very much agree.

The defendent (and his solicitor) very much pushed the sob-story, "Never had a chance" to try and excuse his actions.

The simple facts were that the guy had numerous driving offences and an existing ban. Yet he admitted himself to having gone out and bought the car (that day?). That shows a complete and utter disregard for society as a whole as well as big bag full of intent.

This was at best aggravated manslaughter. I would only say it's not murder on account of him not specifically targetting the two victims. However every other action of his that day was intentional and could have had no other outcome except to result in the death of somebody.

All this judgement does is show the scum of this country is that you can continually break the law, intentionally and maliciously ignore all previous judgements and sanctions of the court, kill two people and destroy their families' lives and so long as you say you're sorry, you'll get a paltry eight years in prison. Probably four if he keeps his nose clean.

I too am interested to know what the logic is in imposed a 15 year ban on someone who's already banned for 20.

McCrack

According to the Irish Times he was sentenced to 8 years

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1106/1225893547206.html

You must bear in mind that the judicial process is not concerned with revenge but punishing and rehabilitating.

The general tenor of your post I dont agree with.

Paulzx

McCrack wrote: »

You must bear in mind that the judicial process is not concerned with revenge but punishing and rehabilitating.

That may be so but 7 years is not sufficient punishment

seamus

McCrack wrote: »

You must bear in mind that the judicial process is not concerned with revenge but punishing and rehabilitating.

Does it not also need to take into account previous punishments and previous failures to rehabilitate?

How far does it have to go before the law stands back and decides it has already made sufficient attempts to rehabilitate this individual and blame the individual for his own actions?

Col_Loki

Does it not also need to take into account previous punishments and previous failures to rehabilitate?

How far does it have to go before the law stands back and decides it has already made sufficient attempts to rehabilitate this individual and blame the individual for his own actions?

+1 Totally agree.

civdef

This really sounds more like a legal / societal debate than one relating to emergency services...

Eru

In a nutshell, for every person that wants criminals dealt with severly and with serious sentences for serious crimes there will be those that condemn the system, defend the guilty and attack the very system / people who are working on the part of the victim.

As for victims input, this was on the way to becoming a part of the system but then a victims family in a high profile case used their victim impact report to raise more questions and state innacurate facts in front of the jury.

AlekSmart

Apologies mods if you feel the topic is in the wrong place.

I do feel,however,that no member of the emergency services who is required as an integral part of their job to attend at scenes such as were caused at Kylemore Road that night should be considered as unaffected by the events.

To that end I would suggest that this individual`s actions have vastly more far reaching implications than merely killing two foreigners.

I very much regret if the tenor of my original post in any way offends those such as McCrack,but I am at pains to try and remain objective in the face of what appears to be overwhelming evidence suggesting institutional indefference to the suffering caused to the general (Law Abiding?) populace.

Taking McCracks points re the Judicial "Process" and its objectives,I would state that revenge is not what I contemplate.

I do have real concerns however that the Judicial "process" continues to throw up these types of verdict with worrying frequency.

It is as if members of the judiciary,free from any form of sanction have taken upon themselves the mantle of deciding on a personal level just what level of protection the general body of (Law Abiding) society is entitled to.
On the basis of Judge Delahunt`s sentencing in this case,the answer appears to be a minimal level.

Taking Karlitosway`s point re those for/against harsher sentencing,I would agree that this may well seem to be the case.
However there is a noticeable tendency for liberal minded arguement to get far wider exposition due to the greater proliferation of such mindset amongst the somewhat more detached middle/upper classes who,in turn,have more unfettered access to the print and broadcast media.

Rereading the accounts of this sentencing only serves to instil greater nervousness on my part as to whether any form of Policing or Judicial retribution is ever acceptable in modern Ireland.

CLADA

Your points are well made AlekSmart and are in line with the opinions and feelings of people I have spoken to regarding this tragedy.

The punishment must fit the crime, it is also important that the families of Mmes Tallon and Liotard get justice. They have a right to expect the courts set an example to prevent other families facing the loss and trauma they are currently experiencing. That's not revenge, it's simply expecting that the punishment administered would also be just and a deterrent to others.

McCrack

Aleksmart firstly you didnt offend me in any way with your comments and I do admire your objectivity in what is a very difficult and tragic case.
This man was sentenced to 8 years for what I understand was a charge of Dangereous Driving Causing Death not manslaughter and certainly not murder. As such that kind of sentence is on the upper-end of the scale for such a crime. I stand corrected but off the top of my head the maximun penalty for DDCD is 10 years.

The judiciary are far from a law upon themselves as you seem to suggest, they are bound by the law itself, previous cases decided and of course the DPP which can appeal leniancy of an indictable crime to the Court of Criminal Appeal. There's a whole body of thought and consideration on sentencing out there, it's not as simple as an eye for an eye...

deadwood

On a personal level, I find sentencing in cases like this difficult to comprehend.

On a professional level, though, I accept the verdicts and sentences of the courts. My job is to investigate and present a case to the courts. In effect, I am a witness. I wince when I hear guards say "I got yer man x months".

I don't envy the position of judges who have to weigh up the history of the offender with the gravity of the offence and also take into consideration the limited resources of the prison and probation services.

Nobody will ask a question or make a point the judge in this case has not carefully considered already.

AlekSmart

Deadwood,I see and appreciate your dilemma regarding the sentencing process.

Your point about merely being a witness who presents their findings to the court is also very apposite.

Whether we like it or not a deceased person,be they a murder victim or accident related has very little actual standing in the judicial process.
However an accused person is automatically entitled to the full protection of the State,something which is used to the full by those who find themselves at one with the judicial system.

Essentially a deceased person has no longer any "rights" in relation to the presentation of the case.

The relatives and indeed the memories of that person become the property of the investigating Gardai.
They in effect are the people who make the last statement of the deceased.
At some point in the Kylemore Rd trial members of the Gardai had to outline to the court the timeline of the events..in effect the Gardai are walking along that road beside those two women.
This continues right up to the point of impact,documented so accurately and statistically before the Gardai have to say their farewell to those women and revert to being mute as their accounts are then "Considered" by the court.

I sure don`t envy a Judge either,but I would not agree that a Judge of necessity would automatically have carefully considered ALL points and asked ALL questions.
That for me is just a little too close to the Lord Denning "appalling vista" scenario.
The Judiciary can and do get it wrong,some would say on an increasingly worrying scale.
One thing is all too apparent and that is the numbers of repeat offenders who are so au fait with the system and procesess that they progress easily through it.

Many years ago now I had cause to regularly frequent the District Court adjacent to the Bridewell for a number of months.
The memory of young gougers forcefully instructing their solicitors regarding pleas and of the manner in which these lads breezed through the process contrasted starkly with the dazed and confused appearance of those "Ordinary" people who were required to take part in the process either as witnesses or even as Accused persons.

One of the more worrying aspects of the current "Recession " is what effect the dwindling financial resources of the State will have when it becomes apparent that free beer,crisps and legal representation for the great unwashed may have to be curtailed....Then we`ll see trouble I suspect.

deadwood

AlekSmart wrote: »

One of the more worrying aspects of the current "Recession " is what effect the dwindling financial resources of the State will have when it becomes apparent that free beer,crisps and legal representation for the great unwashed may have to be curtailed....Then we`ll see trouble I suspect.

Don't forget the free prams, houses and cars!:D

Stay_in_Kampuchea

deadwood wrote: »

Don't forget the free prams, houses and cars!:D