Suspended sentence for sexual assault of girl (12)

Klingon Hamlet

Article here

A grandfather was given a 12-month suspended sentence yesterday for sexually assaulting a vulnerable 12-year-old girl following a drinking binge.


Christopher Donegan (51) of Alpine Heights, Clondalkin, Dublin, was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment -- suspended for two years -- and ordered to post a personal bond of €200 at Blanchardstown District Court after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting the young girl on July 29, 2008.


The victim -- who is in long-term State care -- wrote in a victim impact statement that the assault left her scared and "angry all the time".


She also said she didn't want to to testify in court because she was "too afraid to see him".


The court heard that Mr Donegan was suffering from stress and had a long-standing drinking problem that was exacerbated when he was made redundant from his job as building site foreman shortly before the incident.


He had been on a 12-day drinking spree prior to the incident and was drinking at a local pub when the assault occurred.


The court heard that Mr Donegan had won some money and was celebrating his win when he met a group of young girls hanging around outside the pub.


He began chatting with them and bought drink for the girls, who drank it in a nearby field.


He then walked the victim -- who had absconded from her residential care facility -- to a derelict lot near a bus stop, where he undid his trousers and ordered her to touch his penis.


The victim also said that he left a bruise on her neck from a "hickey" he gave her while kissing and sucking her neck.


Mr Donegan said the assault "just happened" and he was unable to say why he did it or remember the incident clearly.


The separated father of two adult children, who has a four-year-old grandson, sat with his head down when District Court Judge Patrick McMahon delivered the sentence.


His barrister, Simon Fleming, said his client had never committed any sexual offences previously and noted that a psychiatrist's report found him to be at low risk of re-offending. He also said his client had been sober since last October.


But Judge McMahon said: "As far as I'm concerned, once is too much for this type of offence."


Referring to the "defilement of a child who is in care", he called the assault a "predatory type of crime to a vulnerable child".

Why was it suspended? Because he was "at low risk of re-offending"? I think this is awful.

prinz

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Why was it suspended? Because he was "at low risk of re-offending"? I think this is awful.

..because our legal system is weak. Far too many excuses;alcohol, lost my job boo hoo hoo.:( Things like this should carry automatic mandatory sentences regardless of how many excuses a legal team can spin.

Cookie_Monster

51 and a grandfather to a 12 year old, classy

prinz

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

51 and a grandfather to a 12 4 year old, classy

FYP. The assaulted girl wasn't his grandchild.

Klingon Hamlet

prinz wrote: »

..because our legal system is weak. Far too many excuses;alcohol, lost my job boo hoo hoo.:( Things like this should carry automatic mandatory sentences regardless of how many excuses a legal team can spin.

What is the meaning behind suspended sentences? Does it mean if the criminal recommits the same crime, then the full sentence is enforced? Does it basically mean, "we'll only get you if you target another victim"?

Cookie_Monster

prinz wrote: »

FYP. The assaulted girl wasn't his grandchild.

awww, read fail

edit: was he charged for buying under age people drink too? Somehow I doubt it...

Cookie_Monster

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

What is the meaning behind suspended sentences? Does it mean if the criminal recommits the same crime, then the full sentence is enforced? Does it basically mean, "we'll only get you if you target another victim"?

if they commit any crime isin't it, not just the same one?

prinz

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

What is the meaning behind suspended sentences? Does it mean if the criminal recommits the same crime, then the full sentence is enforced? Does it basically mean, "we'll only get you if you target another victim"?

Could be for coming to attention of the gardaí for anything.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/criminal-law/criminal-trial/types-of-sentences

A suspended sentence involves the judge imposing a prison sentence but suspending it on certain conditions. This means that you do not go to prison if you do not break the conditions. A suspended sentence contains 3 elements:

-The term of imprisonment (for example, 4 years)

-The conditions on which it is suspended (for example, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour or to undergo certain treatment)

-The period for which the sentence is suspended


If you break a condition during the period for which the sentence is suspended, you will have to serve the term of imprisonment originally imposed.

Mrmoe

These types of rulings give criminals a carte blanche to do whatever they want. There is no deterrent in this type of sentencing. Judges seem to have forgotten that. There is a consistent trend where criminals get very lenient sentences for the crime committed.

UrbanSea

People get sent for statutory rape when they're two years older than their 'victim' but they don't get sent to jail for this? Fed up of the stupid legal system here

Buford T Justice

Such Genius
Judge Says "As far as I'm concerned, once is too much for this type of offence."

So what does he do? Impose a suspended sentence.

Dickhead!

DazMarz

Nonces and scum like this should be locked up for life. No question. The mental scars left by incidents like this on the victim can never be imagined. There should be no mercy shown to any paedophiles. It's the one thing I'd nearly bring back the death penalty for.

itsallaboutheL

The irish court system is a fucking joke.

PeterIanStaker

This sick **** needs to be locked up with the hard chaws who will hold him down and do to him what he did to that girl.

ejmaztec

I don't think too much drink turns people into paedos, all most people get is a hangover. The judge is a knob.

The_Minister

Mrmoe wrote: »

These types of rulings give criminals a carte blanche to do whatever they want. There is no deterrent in this type of sentencing. Judges seem to have forgotten that. There is a consistent trend where criminals get very lenient sentences for the crime committed.

The deterrent is that if they break ANY law again, they can be sent to jail for a long time.

It keeps harmless people who aren't a danger out of our overcrowded-in-breach-of-international-laws jails.
EDIT: By harmless, I mean he most likely will not be a danger into the future.

My name is URL

Possible life imprisonment for anyone selling Mephedrone and suspended sentences for kiddy fiddlers.. yeah makes sense.

How would we as a country go about trying to improve our legal system? A general election is unlikely to make any difference.

Indubitable

The_Minister wrote: »

The deterrent is that if they break ANY law again, they can be sent to jail for a long time.

Even speeding or parking on double yellow lines? :eek:

Mike 1972

The_Minister wrote: »

By harmless, I mean he most likely will not be a danger into the future.

While this should be a major facter in determining sentencing In this particular instance it is being pushed a bit

Herb Powell

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

This sick **** needs to be locked up with the hard chaws who will hold him down and do to him what he did to that girl.

what, buy him drink and kiss him?
not making fun of the girl

jimmycrackcorm

My name is URL wrote: »

Possible life imprisonment for anyone selling Mephedrone and suspended sentences for kiddy fiddlers.. yeah makes sense.

Come back and re-post when someone gets life imprisonment for selling meph because it'll be a long time. A possible life sentence is valid if a contaminated batch of mephedrone was sold to a number of people which resulted in fatal consequences for example.

It would appear that the mob mentality would prefer to dispense justice via kangaroo courts and do away with any defence.

Cypher_sounds

Sick to think a SICKO can get off scott free and not serve jail time, he should have his mickey chopped off for that and raped in jail.

My name is URL

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Come back and re-post when someone gets life imprisonment for selling meph because it'll be a long time. A possible life sentence is valid if a contaminated batch of mephedrone was sold to a number of people which resulted in fatal consequences for example.

It would appear that the mob mentality would prefer to dispense justice via kangaroo courts and do away with any defence.

I only used that as an example of the imbalance in laws. How many people are currently behind bars serving compulsory sentences for relatively* minor offenses?

*Relative to sexually assaulting a child, that is

Sir Gallagher

Herb Powell wrote: »

what, buy him drink and kiss him?
not making fun of the girl

Don't forget the mickey touching.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

The reason this guy got off so lightly is because it was a lower class of sexual assault - there was no penetration. It's that simple :pac:

charlemont

are people here still so stupid that they cannot see something suspicious about the judges attitude to sex crime.. whereas if its drugs the judge wont be long in handing down a stiff sentence, look at the freaks who turned up at a recent court case near the kerry limerick border to support a rapist even the priest was with them .. these same freaks wouldnt be long calling the guards if they got a wiff of hash..

ldxo15wus6fpgm

charlemont wrote: »

are people here still so stupid that they cannot see something suspicious about the judges attitude to sex crime.. whereas if its drugs the judge wont be long in handing down a stiff sentence, look at the freaks who turned up at a recent court case near the kerry limerick border to support a rapist even the priest was with them .. these same freaks wouldnt be long calling the guards if they got a wiff of hash..

Perhaps they showed up because they thought he was innocent? You're assuming that these people are supportive of sexual assaults, which IMO is a little naive. Unless they actually stated that they were pro-rape.

EDIT: Also, a judge won't impose a massive sentence on someone unless there is solid evidence against them, and that goes for all crimes. Unfortunately, it is rare that a victim of sexual assault will come forward immediately, and crimes that happened a long time ago are quite hard to prove as they can't get a rape kit done etc. - A while back I was shadowing a solicitor in Tralee for a while, was in the court for a couple of hearings about such a case, some people had come forward years after the alleged assaults, making it much harder to gather solid evidence against the defendant. They were lucky in that he confessed. If he hadn't they wouldn't have had much of a chance.

I absolutely detest all this bandwagoning with regards to sex crimes (and crime in general) against people who have not yet been proven guilty of anything. Paedophiles are indeed sick people, but until they have been found guilty, you need to STFU, because there is always a chance that they're innocent. :rolleyes:

Ulysses Gaze

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

If you allow judicial discretion in these cases then this is what you get.

Cookie_Monster

My name is URL wrote: »

How would we as a country go about trying to improve our legal system? A general election is unlikely to make any difference.

the laws in general are fine, the punishments are the problem.

Several steps are required:

1) manditory minimum sentences that will actually act as a deterrant

2) Reform of the prison system

3) More prisons, but less of the luxuries currently in place. ie there is no need for any form of TV (other than the CCTV kind)

4) Prisoners having to perform some form of work/ community service for at least 35 hrs a week, just to show them that prison is indeed hard work

5) Heavier sentences for repeat offences

6) do away with concurrent sentences

that might about do it...

WalterMitty

Just for clarity, he didnt rape her and although underage that doesnt automatically make him a paedo as girl may have been post pubescent. Not defending him in any way though but mild compared to a lot of sex crimes against underage people.

orourkeda

My name is URL wrote: »

Possible life imprisonment for anyone selling Mephedrone and suspended sentences for kiddy fiddlers.. yeah makes sense.

How would we as a country go about trying to improve our legal system? A general election is unlikely to make any difference.

Why would we need a general election to reform the law?

Surely having an effective legal system should transcend pollitics or is this naive

My name is URL

orourkeda wrote: »

Why would we need a general election to reform the law?

Surely having an effective legal system should transcend pollitics or is this naive

The system for dealing with and enforcing the law might transcend politics, but politics define the law.

Butch Cassidy

An After Hours trial by jury would resemble something from the middle ages....

Stuffy

It clearly has somethin gto do with the fact that the girl is in state care. Basically who is gonna kick up a fuss for her? The social services etc don't want this publicity as she was in there care, not to mention out underage drinking at 12 ffs

Overheal

"He raped a young wan!!!!"

"Ah sure but it was from alcohol."

"Oh right. If it had been from Crystal Meth we might have had a problem. But drink... run along now"


Seriously should it matter? He fcuking raped her. The fact that he didnt have the senses not to binge for 2 straight weeks is his own fcuking problem. If it had been "Psychoactive Substances" he'd be in a cell now.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Overheal wrote: »

"He raped a young wan!!!!"

"Ah sure but it was from alcohol."

"Oh right. If it had been from Crystal Meth we might have had a problem. But drink... run along now"


Seriously should it matter? He fcuking raped her. The fact that he didnt have the senses not to binge for 2 straight weeks is his own fcuking problem. If it had been "Psychoactive Substances" he'd be in a cell now.

:rolleyes:

If you had read the post carefully you would have noticed that there was no penetration. Due to this, he did not get a big sentence as it's a lower class of sexual assault if there is no penetration. Also, he was not forceful, it was statutory rape. I'm not saying that's ok, but it would make for a more lenient sentencing.

Ickle Magoo

A 51 yr old ordering a 12yr old they've deliberately plied with drink and taken to a secluded spot to touch their genitalia isn't being forceful? Really? :eek:

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

A 51 yr old ordering a 12yr old they've deliberately plied with drink and taken to a secluded spot to touch their genitalia isn't being forceful? Really? :eek:

Yes. She didn't struggle/fight him off, he wasn't violent or aggressive. He didn't 'ply' them, he bought it and they buggered off and drank somewhere else. Again, I'm not saying that makes it any better, but common sense would tell you it would make for a shorter sentence against someone who was violent/aggressive.

Your Airbag

I'm amazed at the judges actions, unfortunatley they are infalable and its an impossiblity to try a case twice or give a second sentence.

Ickle Magoo

Brysen Itchy Loaf wrote: »

Yes. She didn't struggle/fight him off, he wasn't violent or aggressive. He didn't 'ply' them, he bought it and they buggered off and drank somewhere else. Again, I'm not saying that makes it any better, but common sense would tell you it would make for a shorter sentence against someone who was violent/aggressive.

So he bought 12 yr olds drink, they went off, then just by con-incidence they bumped into each other again and he took one to a secluded spot? Riiiiiight...

And now being 51 Vs a 12 yr old and ordering them to touch genitalia isn't aggressive? I must say you have a very odd way of viewing things.

While I agree it makes sense he would get a lesser sentence than someone who was violent but I don't think that makes a suspended sentence an appropriate punishment, either.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So he bought 12 yr olds drink, they went off, then just by con-incidence they bumped into each other again and he took one to a secluded spot? Riiiiiight...

And now being 51 Vs a 12 yr old and ordering them to touch genitalia isn't aggressive? I must say you have a very odd way of viewing things.

While I agree it makes sense he would get a lesser sentence than someone who was violent but I don't think that makes a suspended sentence an appropriate punishment, either.

Dude, just because he was after this young wan doesn't mean he was aggressive. It just means he's a f*cking pervert.

It is extremely likely that the use of the word 'ordered' is an embellishment made by the paper. He was also kissing her, yet there was no mention of her saying 'no' or asking him to stop etc. If she had been afraid of him or uncomfortable she would have said so in her statement and you can be damn sure the paper would have printed it if she had said that. It does say she was scared after the assault but not during.

Think about it this way: the way the prison system is (a revolving door) would you rather this guy went in for 3 years and someone who had committed a violent crime be let out?

Ickle Magoo

Well, I'm not assuming the paper is embellishing in order to make a pervert look better, either. If events played out even remotely like reported then the judge should be thrown off the bench.

Tbh, I'd rather there were sufficient prison places to accommodate them both.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, I'm not assuming the paper is embellishing in order to make a pervert look better, either. If events played out even remotely like reported then the judge should be thrown off the bench.

Tbh, I'd rather there were sufficient prison places to accommodate them both.

Hardly. It's the judge's job to be impartial and not give an overly harsh ruling. Remember that they start with the maximum sentence and then take other factors into account and make appropriate reductions. Fair enough, this is a light sentence for a sex offender, however there are much much worse things he could have done, and as he wasn't violent or aggressive and was a first time offender with a low risk of repeating, the judge saw fit to give him a 2nd chance. It was even against the judge's feelings on the matter, he said "once is enough" with regard to sex offences, however it's his job to be impartial and he's done exactly that.

I think we'd all rather that but it will be a long time coming in this country.

Ickle Magoo

Unduly lenient sentences are hardly unheard of & I think this is a prime example - and I suspect why this case has attracted all the media attention.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

It is indeed lenient but it's not overly so. He's been assessed as a low risk for re-offence, and taking into account the factors in the case I wouldn't have put him in prison. I'd have given him a much tougher sentence but still suspended (4 years suspended for 3).

I tend to pay a lot of attention to criminal cases and their sentences purely out of interest. I've seen shockingly lenient sentences and tbh this isn't one of them.

Ickle Magoo

I think it's pretty subjective depending on what crimes you consider serious - and how serious you judge them, I guess. Unfortunately those old blustery men on the judicial panels have a really terrible track record with not taking sexual assaults in general very seriously & giving out lenient punishments to the perpetrators as a result...whether it's just lenient or shockingly lenient is irrelevant - I'd rather not judge punishments on a graduating scale of the ineptitude of the sentencing.

The guy should be glad I'm not a judge anyway.

Coriolanus

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

An After Hours trial by jury would resemble something from the middle ages....

Screaming mob? Check.
Access to pitchforks and flammable materials? Check.
Sure it'd be a great day out for the kids!