Man sentenced to go to Mayo...

The_Minister

.........and climb Croagh Patrick.

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/man-must-climb-croagh-patrick-after-abusing-garda-131103.html

Man must climb Croagh Patrick after abusing garda
By Seán P Feeny
Friday, September 17, 2010
A MAN who verbally abused a garda has been sentenced to climb Croagh Patrick.

Donegal man Joseph McElwee, 38, was outside a pub when he called an on-duty garda a "Mayo wanker" and told him to "**** off home to Mayo". Garda Nicholas Freyne told the court the abuse continued for 10 minutes.

McElwee was charged at Milford District Courtwith threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, intoxication, disorderly conduct, wilful obstruction and failing to comply with the direction of a garda.

Judge Seamus Hughes told McElwee he was to do the four stations of the famous Mayo pilgrimage as a mark of respect for his fellow Irish people, especially those in the line of duty.

Judge Hughes heard how the defendant was part of a group of three who approached two members of the gardaí outside a pub in Rathmullan and began verbally abusing them on March 28, 2010.

Solicitor Kieran O’Gorman said his client was a 38-year-old unemployed joiner and father-of-two who had never been in bother before and had no previous history of behaviour of this nature.

Judge Hughes, who is a Mayo native himself, asked the defendant whether he had ever been to Co Mayo and climbed Croagh Patrick.

"I want you to come back in a month’s time with evidence that you did the four stations of Croagh Patrick and say a few prayers. You then might have a different impression of Co Mayo and its people."

Judge Hughes said he was very serious about the issue.

Mr O’Gorman asked the judge how his client would be able to prove that he climbed Croagh Patrick.

Judge Hughes replied that he will have questions prepared: "You’d better have the answers, and I will know whether you are telling the truth or not."


This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Friday, September 17, 2010

I wish judges did more 'innovative' sentencing.

In a recession we all need the amusement.

Biggins

A judge that is thinking "out of the box" - I like it! LOL

stovelid

Barrister: we propose that Hell be put forward as a alternative destination for my client, your honour.

Ghetto Cornetto

That judge is a legend.

klose

To Hell or to Connaught

dlofnep

Sounded fine until the "say a few prayers" bollocks.

Cookie_Monster

I want you to come back in a month’s time with evidence that you did the four stations of Croagh Patrick and say a few prayers

The judge should be stricken off for comments like that, how dare he presume to force religion on someone by use of the courts :mad:

It could have been worse, he could have been sent to Coventry!

Dravokivich

whippedcream wrote: »

To Hell or to Connaught

But aren't they 1 and the same?

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The judge should be stricken off for comments like that, how dare he presume to force religion on someone by use of the courts :mad:

It was probably an offhand comment more than anything else. No need to get so annoyed.

This is a brilliant punishment!

mikom

I can see the headline......

Man falls to death whilst climbing Croagh Patrick under court order.

Didn't know we had the death penalty in Ireland.

up for anything

I hope he does the climb backwards, while reciting the mass backwards and wearing a masonic robe. He'll probably cost us thousands having to be rescued by coast guard helicopter. :rolleyes:

bonerm

mikom wrote: »

I can see the headline......

Man falls to death whilst climbing Croagh Patrick under court order.

Didn't know we had the death penalty in Ireland.

Well if it happens then I hope this becomes a standard sentence across the country.

aDeener

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The judge should be stricken off for comments like that, how dare he presume to force religion on someone by use of the courts :mad:

oh sweet suffering divine.....
:rolleyes:

IvySlayer

Great, any Australian Garda I can abuse here?

starbelgrade

Judge Hughes, who is a Mayo native himself, asked the defendant whether he had ever been to Co Mayo and climbed Croagh Patrick.

"I want you to come back in a month’s time with evidence that you did the four stations of Croagh Patrick and say a few prayers

Personally, I would have told the judge - with the greatest of respect - to go & f*ck himself.

Sykk

starbelgrade wrote: »

Personally, I would have told the judge - with the greatest of respect - to go & f*ck himself.

No you wouldn't have.

The_Minister

starbelgrade wrote: »

Personally, I would have told the judge - with the greatest of respect - to go & f*ck himself.

Then you would have gone to jail.

starbelgrade

The_Minister wrote: »

Then you would have gone to jail.

I'd rather serve time than have some halfwit judge forcing his religion on me. I have my principles.

aDeener

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'd rather serve time than have some halfwit judge forcing his religion on me. I have my principles.

any more jokes?

ILA

1. Where's the precedent for this decision, following the notion of Stare Decisis?
2. The Courts are supposed to enforce the secular law. Odd.

starbelgrade

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'd rather serve time than have some halfwit judge forcing his religion on me. I have my principles.

Ugh. It's attitudes like this that makes my blood boil.

Shenshen

dlofnep wrote: »

Sounded fine until the "say a few prayers" bollocks.

^^ This.
Until that bit, I found the sentence absolutely hilarious!

pickarooney

ILA wrote: »

1. Where's the precedent for this decision, following the notion of Stare Decisis?
2. The Courts are supposed to enforce the secular law. Odd.

A staring match with the loser going to prison? Cool!

starbelgrade

Deleted User wrote: »

Ugh. It's attitudes like this that makes my blood boil.

People standing up for what they believe in makes your blood boil?

You must be a member of the Green Party so.

stbrennan

I can see some sort of "Deliverence" incident happening out there.:eek:

jimmycrackcorm

ILA wrote: »

1. Where's the precedent for this decision, following the notion of Stare Decisis?
2. The Courts are supposed to enforce the secular law. Odd.

Precedent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convicts_in_Australia

starbelgrade

starbelgrade wrote: »

People standing up for what they believe in makes your blood boil?

You must be a member of the Green Party so.

There's standing up for something and then there's being ignorant. In your previous comment, you were the latter.

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

There's standing up for something and then there's being ignorant. In your previous comment, you were the latter.

how so. the judge is using the state legal structure to enforce his religious beliefs on someone as part of their sentence they must carry out and provide proof of.

how the feck are you even supposed to prove you prayed to God or whoever?

elchupanebrey

bonerm wrote: »

Well if it happens then I hope this becomes a standard sentence across the country.

Yeah send all your scangers over to Mayo. No thanks.:mad:

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how so. the judge is using the state legal structure to enforce his religious beliefs on someone as part of their sentence they must carry out and provide proof of.

how the feck are you even supposed to prove you prayed to God or whoever?

Video camera, I would assume. I was referring to them telling the judge to f*ck off. No matter what way you put it, that is being ignorant.

karlog

Judge Hughes said he was very serious about the issue.

Mr O’Gorman asked the judge how his client would be able to prove that he climbed Croagh Patrick.

Judge Hughes replied that he will have questions prepared: "You’d better have the answers, and I will know whether you are telling the truth or not."

An easier solution would be to have video evidence of his climb, instead of a Q&A session.

starbelgrade

Deleted User wrote: »

Video camera, I would assume. I was referring to them telling the judge to f*ck off. No matter what way you put it, that is being ignorant.

And forcing someone - by law - to carry out a religious act, against their principles, isn't ignorant?

How does that work, Ted?

mikom

starbelgrade wrote: »

And forcing someone - by law - to carry out a religious act, against their principles, isn't ignorant?

How does that work, Ted?

Sharia law Irish style.

starbelgrade

mikom wrote: »

Sharia law Irish style.

Thanks, Ted. I get it now.

starbelgrade

starbelgrade wrote: »

And forcing someone - by law - to carry out a religious act, against their principles, isn't ignorant?

How does that work, Ted?

What would you do if you were the judge? Fining them? That won't achieve anything. Sentencing them to a week in jail? That won't do anything either. At least making a 58 year old alcoholic walk up a hill like that will make him think twice about being abusive.

IvySlayer

Deleted User wrote: »

What would you do if you were the judge? Fining them? That won't achieve anything. Sentencing them to a week in jail? That won't do anything either. At least making a 58 year old alcoholic walk up a hill like that will make him think twice about being abusive.

He's 38 and unemployed. Maybe ban him from all pubs for about 6 months..Maybe cut his dole for a few months.

Will there be a Garda watching him do it? Will he have to sign in at every Garda station? What happens if he doesn't turn up?

It's a joke of a sentence.

starbelgrade

Deleted User wrote: »

What would you do if you were the judge? Fining them? That won't achieve anything. Sentencing them to a week in jail? That won't do anything either. At least making a 58 year old alcoholic walk up a hill like that will make him think twice about being abusive.

Making him walk up a hill - maybe. Telling him to pray. No.

When you start bringing religious punishments into secular law, that's a very slippery slope to start on.. the courts aren't confession boxes.

ILA

IvySlayer wrote: »

He's 38 and unemployed. Maybe ban him from all pubs for about 6 months..Maybe cut his dole for a few months.

Will there be a Garda watching him do it? Will he have to sign in at every Garda station? What happens if he doesn't turn up?

It's a joke of a sentence.

Queue the creation of the Garda HillWalking Support Unit (GHSU)

df1985

dlofnep wrote: »

Sounded fine until the "say a few prayers" bollocks.

I love how someone who thanked this post has the username "dougal-maguire."

Feck praying ted, its a load of bollocks!

Prof.Badass

Should being verbally abusive to a garda really be a punishable offence in itself? I mean, you wouldn't go to court for being verbally abusive to a randomer on the street. You'd be told to move on.

With all the more serious crime going on, should our justice system really be wasting it's time with a guy who omg "called a garda a mayo wanker!!!"?

idk, i'm just inclined to think a modern proffessional police force should be above responsding to petty juvenile insults.

I can understand why physical assault against a garda is treated much more seriously than normal physical assault (the extra detterant stops some people from trying something stupid to get away), but i can't see how mouthing off at the gardaí has any effect.

Just seems like a pointless excercise to demonstrate their authority.

-EDIT- Failing to comply with garda instruction sounds like something proper. Kinda stupid that the story draws attention to the name calling .

IvySlayer

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Should being verbally abusive to a garda really be a punishable offence in itself? I mean, you wouldn't go to court for being verbally abusive to a randomer on the street.

With all the more serious crime going on, should our justice system really be wasting it's time with a drunk who omg "called a garda a mayo wanker!!!"?

idk, i'm just inclined to think a modern proffessional police force should be above responsding to petty juvenile insults.

I can understand why physical assault against a garda is treated much more seriously than normal physical assault (the extra detterant stops some people from trying something stupid to get away), but i can't see how mouthing off at the gardaí has any effect.

Just seems like a pointless excercise to demonstrate their authority.

He followed him for 10 minutes abusing him. I'd say they were patient enough. Gardaí do a hard job and don't need some drunk roaring at them.

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

What would you do if you were the judge? Fining them? That won't achieve anything. Sentencing them to a week in jail? That won't do anything either. At least making a 58 year old alcoholic walk up a hill like that will make him think twice about being abusive.

yeah, thats bit is fine, no issue with it. Think its quite novel.

But adding the religious part is overstepping a boundary, religion has no place in the legal system. would the same punishment have been given if he was muslim (or other)? Could you imagine the outrage that would have caused?

how can you provide evidence of saying a prayer to God when he doesn't exist? its just unpossible

nibtrix

Apparently it's not enforceable:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/penance-for-garda-insult-is-to-climb-croagh-patrick-2341148.html

Last night a legal expert said while judges can make suggestions as to ways in which defendants can show their remorse, such unusual proposals, such as climbing Croagh Patrick, are unenforceable under law.

"It does seem a bizarre suggestion, but it's not unprecedented," one legal source explained.

"It's a somewhat more unusual variation of a theme, like paying out to a court poor box or a local charity. It isn't a penalty, just a suggestion that you should do something to show you're truly sorry."

While Judge Hughes has presided over Donegal District Court for less than a year, his occasionally unusual ideas have already attracted attention.

The Mayo man, a Fianna Fail TD between 1992 and 1997, began presiding over District Court proceedings last October.

He often asks defendants who have pleaded guilty to show their regret for their actions by taking part in community charity groups, before deciding what legal penalty to hand down.

starbelgrade

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'd rather serve time than have some halfwit judge forcing his religion on me. I have my principles.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how so. the judge is using the state legal structure to enforce his religious beliefs on someone as part of their sentence they must carry out and provide proof of.

how the feck are you even supposed to prove you prayed to God or whoever?

Will ye stop talking rot.

goose2005

what next, will people be circumcised, or ordered to make hajj?

aDeener

starbelgrade wrote: »

And forcing someone - by law - to carry out a religious act, against their principles, isn't ignorant?

How does that work, Ted?

claiming to say you would have told a judge to go fuck himself and do time in jail instead of climbing a mountain, is pretty damn hilarious...... and hardy, really hardy. i bet that judge wouldn't even sit in a courtroom with you, he would be that petrified.

bennyc

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'd rather serve time than have some halfwit judge forcing his religion on me. I have my principles.

So would you have refused to swear on the holy bible also ??

mikom

bennyc wrote: »

So would you have refused to swear on the holy bible also ??

DUN..DUN..DUN..DUUUUUN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw

nibtrix

goose2005 wrote: »

what next, will people be circumcised, or ordered to make hajj?

Like I said a few posts ago, telling this guy to go up a mountain is not an enforceable punishment - it's not even a sentence. Sentence will be passed on October 11. The judge is suggesting the guy goes and climbs the mountain in the meantime to show how sorry he is, but the guy doesn't have to do it (though presumably the judge would give him a lighter sentence if he did).

Suggesting that it will lead to sentences of circumcision or forced hajj is a bit over the top.

bennyc wrote: »

So would you have refused to swear on the holy bible also ??

This would not be a problem, it's ok to refuse to swear on a bible, I think you just have to make a different oath.

starbelgrade

bennyc wrote: »

So would you have refused to swear on the holy bible also ??

Yes. Why would I swear on a book that means f*ck all to me?