Sentencing for assaults on Gardai & civies

angelfire9

Following on from comments in the Roll of Honour thread, have been thinking about the difference in sentencing those convicted of assaulting both civilians and gardai

For myself, both my hubby & I have both been assaulted (at different times obviously) and the sentences on conviction were astonishingly different

I was assaulted by a burglar during the course of a burglary (I woke up and stupidly confronted him) this would have been around 8 years ago (and before ye tell me how stupid I was there was an 18 month old in the house with me and I did it instinctively)

Section 3 assault conviction (he tried to throttle me but no lasting damage other than a lot of bruising on my neck for a few weeks) plus a burglary charge he got a 6 month sentence & €1000 fine (payable to me)
Person in question had no previous convictions but was "known to Gardai"

Hubby (who is in AGS) was assaulted on duty by a junkie, serious injuries sustained, off work for months, 12 years later is still on light duties
The junkie who had previous for drug offences but no previous assault charges was given a 2 year suspended sentence & ordered into rehab!


How on earth is this fair??????????

mcmoustache

It's not.

There is a lot that we don't know here but the case could have been heard by a different judge, the junkie may have had better representation, who knows? All I know is that there isn't any obvious consistency with sentencing.

angelfire9

The burglar was in Ennis District court the case was heard by a Judge Mc Bride as Judge Mangan was either on holidays or hearing cases somewhere else in Clare that day
And he had a good solicitor (a total p***k I might add who had me in tears on the stand)

The junkie's case was in the Circuit in Dublin haven't a clue who the judge was to be honest nor do I know who represented him as I wasn't at the hearing

A Circuit court case gives far greater potential for sentences yet the district court was the one who put the defendant in jail! :eek:

Manic Moran

It's come up in the US for discussion as well. On the one hand, I agree that it's unfair. On the other hand, the police are the emodiment of 'the good of society' so an attack on them is an attack on society as a whole, not just an individual. And arguably, since we ask police to take extra risk on our behalf, there is something to be said for greater protection for them. But on the third hand, why isn't everyone eligible for great protection?

As an aside, the word you're looking for is 'private citizen', not 'civilian'

NTM

source

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's come up in the US for discussion as well. On the one hand, I agree that it's unfair. On the other hand, the police are the emodiment of 'the good of society' so an attack on them is an attack on society as a whole, not just an individual. And arguably, since we ask police to take extra risk on our behalf, there is something to be said for greater protection for them. But on the third hand, why isn't everyone eligible for great protection?

As an aside, the word you're looking for is 'private citizen', not 'civilian'

NTM

The problem manic, is that the op sees her experience as being the other way around, that the assault on the citizen got 6 months of jail time and €1000 fine for what amounted to little more than a large bruise on the neck.

Whereas her husband who is a member of AGS was assaulted, and still cannot function properly after 12 years was assaulted by a junkie and the junkie walked free with nothing but a mark on their record.

From my experience the judiciary over here don't see assault on members of AGS as being as serious, the overriding opinion seems to be that Gardai face dangers as part of the job, so deal with it.

An article which highlights the judiciary's and the peoples view of gardai can be found in this article. Where a man was found not guilty of the manslaughter of a member after driving a stolen car at him and hitting him. The member died a couple of days later through the injuries sustained. The judge thought it prudent to say to the jury before beginning their deliberations:

"while it was tragic, they should not be carried away by the fact that the victim was a garda."

Unfortunately it seems we're not afforded any extra protection, for being willing to put our safety on the line, to ensure the safety of others.

Geansai

Just thinking about this from the other side, should sentences for assaults by gardai (assuming they are found guilty in the courts) be given longer or tougher sentences?

Using the arguments given above, "the police are the emodiment of 'the good of society' " and as such a garda (be they off duty or as part of their duty) has a greater obligation to act within the law.

I realise anglefire that this is taking the thread away from the point you made in your original post, but just curious as to peoples opinions.

angelfire9

Geansai wrote: »

Just thinking about this from the other side, should sentences for assaults by gardai (assuming they are found guilty in the courts) be given longer or tougher sentences?

Using the arguments given above, "the police are the emodiment of 'the good of society' " and as such a garda (be they off duty or as part of their duty) has a greater obligation to act within the law.

I realise anglefire that this is taking the thread away from the point you made in your original post, but just curious as to peoples opinions.

I would be of the opinion that they should
Gardai by nature of the job should know better! And by engaging in criminality they bring the entire force into disrepute

Reloc8

source wrote: »

"while it was tragic, they should not be carried away by the fact that the victim was a garda."

You're mixing up sentencing (on foot of being found/pleading guilty) with criminal liability, in respect of which for the crime of manslaughter there is and should be no distinction between a civilian and a person in uniform.

Unlike the offence of assaulting a peace officer in the course of his or her duty, when crucial to liability is the fact that a peace officer is involved. That carries a max of 5 years on indictment without the need for harm to be inflicted. The same 'common' assault on a civilian carries a 6 month maximum.

That's where these threads always/recently break down. Liability v Punishment.

Sentencing of offending gardai or people in certain other roles is very difficult. They can usually point to an exceptional (by comparison to most accused) record of public service and pro-community behaviour. Against that, the damage done to the system by a member who offends is very great. I would draw a significant distinction between an offence borne of corruption for financial gain (jail time a must) and an offence committed in momentary circumstances/without planning for no financial gain (not necessarily requiring of a jail sentence, unless e.g. an assault causing extremely serious injuries such that any person inflicting same would expect to be jailed).