Sentences of Waterford Gardai

detective

Assuming everyone has heard the sentences handed down by Judge Reynolds yesterday what is the opinion of those sentences...

Kosseegan

Soft.

McCrack

I'd like to hear yours first seeing as you opened this discussion.

MagicSean

Very harsh in comparison to any I've ever seen in relation much worse assaults. I'm baffled as to how this qualified as a section 3 assault. Maybe I missed some of the injuries he received though.

NoQuarter

MagicSean wrote: »

Very harsh in comparison to any I've ever seen in relation much worse assaults. I'm baffled as to how this qualified as a section 3 assault. Maybe I missed some of the injuries he received though.

Because "harm" is only defined as harm to the body or mind including pain and unconsciousness so there is no real need to prove any injury! it is tough to distinguish between s.2 and s.3 though I agree!

mathepac

detective wrote: »

... what is the opinion of those sentences...

I'm not a law expert by any manner or means but given the status of the offenders as defenders of the peace, I thought the sentences were soft enough.

The evidence about malfunctioning cameras and joysticks I didn't understand and I don't know if they resigned or were sacked from the force but I take issue with commentators on the Joe Show today whose opinion was they'd been punished on the double by losing their jobs and getting jail. In most of the respectable jobs / professions that I know of, a conviction for a serious criminal offence is grounds for dismissal.

The arguments about "the pressures of the job" and other related rubbish cuts no ice with me I'm afraid. If a post-holder finds a job too difficult to do, then resign, it's not like they were press-ganged into the Guards.

detective

McCrack wrote: »

I'd like to hear yours first seeing as you opened this discussion.

I'm a serving Garda so I'm not sure if I should give my opinion publicly here. Surely it would be seen as biased. I was hoping for the opinions of people familiar with courts and sentencing.

Milk & Honey

There are the first sentences of serving gardai following a jury trial. If the matter had been dealt with in the district Court on a guilty plea and there was substantial compensation offered the sentences would have been much lighter, possibly probation Act or suspended sentence.
In fighting it out before a jury the situation was very much aggravated. The gardai involved effectively went for a double or quits strategy.
It is not surprising that they got sentences towards the upper range. They abused a position of trust and privilege and tried to brazen it out, refusing to accept blame.

irishh_bob

guards should be held to a higher standard , the sentences were not harsh IMO

Delancey

In the UK it is accepted that Police convicted of serious offences both on and off duty receive tougher sentences than they would have were they civilian - they are held to a higher standard.

McCrack

detective wrote: »

I'm a serving Garda so I'm not sure if I should give my opinion publicly here. Surely it would be seen as biased. I was hoping for the opinions of people familiar with courts and sentencing.

You don't lose your entitlement to an opinion when you become a Guard and this forum is anonymous. That aside I think the sentences were appropriate. It was a S3 assault charge so there must have had to have been some injury inflicted on Holness. None of us here have the benefit of any medical evidence but it has been reported that he continues to suffer flashbacks and headaches from the assault.

Whist I have sympathy for frontline Gardai dealing with piss heads like this guy they are not permitted to go over and above what can be considered reasonable in the circumstances. Clearly the jury thought they acted excessively and the CCTV operator also knew this and directed the camera away during the assault.

They pleaded not guilty and whilst that was their right the fact that they were convicted they cost the State considerable expense in running the trial. The normal plea of guilty concession that a defendant will get did not apply. Also the fact that they were Gardai acting in the course of their duty would of potentially been an aggravating factor because these are the very persons entrusted to uphold citizen's personal, human and constitutional rights and clearly they abused that with their actions.

Also turning up to the courthouse and walking up the steps with motorcycle helmets on probably didn't do their credibility and character much good either.

Delancey

McCrack wrote: »

Also turning up to the courthouse and walking up the steps with motorcycle helmets on probably didn't do their credibility and character much good either.

+ 1 . That was a major own goal and PR disaster for them , whoever advised them on that should be ashamed.

opti76

surely if gardai are to be held in higher esteem as perpetrators of crime then they should also be afforded the same as victims of crime???

people ar saying the sentances goven are soft buy yet there are far more serious criminals walking free everyday..

while i agree with there conviction, as a serving garda i think there sentances should be the norm not the exception. i agree as gardai we should be above reproach .. we shouldnt do the things that we swore to prevent. but are we give the same protection by the courts that society was given in locking these men up does anyone here think if the roles were reversed and a garda was attacked in the same manor that the assailant would be given the same sentance .. especially if he had no previous convictions.. i dont think so somehow.

Milk & Honey

opti76 wrote: »

surely if gardai are to be held in higher esteem as perpetrators of crime then they should also be afforded the same as victims of crime???

people ar saying the sentances goven are soft buy yet there are far more serious criminals walking free everyday..

while i agree with there conviction, as a serving garda i think there sentances should be the norm not the exception. i agree as gardai we should be above reproach .. we shouldnt do the things that we swore to prevent. but are we give the same protection by the courts that society was given in locking these men up does anyone here think if the roles were reversed and a garda was attacked in the same manor that the assailant would be given the same sentance .. especially if he had no previous convictions.. i dont think so somehow.

The sentences were not unduly heavy. Any lawyer advising a person in similar circumstances would have recommended a guilty plea in the District Court with an offer of compensation. Even without compensation there should have been a guilty plea. A defendant can't have his cake and eat it. Any defendant who contests a case before a jury and loses invariably gets a much stiffer sentence than if there was a guilty plea in the District Court. The vast majority of defendants plead guilty. If there are more serious criminals walking free it is because gardai are too busy sitting in wasteful juy trials instead of being out on the streets.

opti76

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The sentences were not unduly heavy. Any lawyer advising a person in similar circumstances would have recommended a guilty plea in the District Court with an offer of compensation. Even without compensation there should have been a guilty plea. A defendant can't have his cake and eat it. Any defendant who contests a case before a jury and loses invariably gets a much stiffer sentence than if there was a guilty plea in the District Court. The vast majority of defendants plead guilty. If there are more serious criminals walking free it is because gardai are too busy sitting in wasteful juy trials instead of being out on the streets.

really ????



http://www.anglocelt.ie/news/courtre...lt-on-a-garda/ (suspended completely)

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/...lt-526974.html (completely suspended despite cutting someone with a bottle)

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhmhkfcwkfid/rss2/ (suspended sentence only re-instated after she again broke the law)

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/ne...rs-781673.html (completely suspended for paying a whopping 300 compensation)

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/9117...ave_prefs=true (all suspended and for the exact same charge as this one)

http://www.braypeople.ie/news/garda-...ed-728612.html (a decent sentence but then 2 years chopped off for no apparant reason and this assault was far worse)

coylemj

For what it's worth, the RTE reporter on the radio said that there was a collective intake of breath on the part of the jury when they saw the 'ferocity of the assault on the victim' (the reporter's words).

I think they were badly advsed but then again, Gardai almost always plead not guilty and a lot of the time a sympathetic jury finds them not guilty. In the case of allegations of police brutality and assault arising out of the riots in 2002 involving the 'Reclaim the Streets' thugs agitators, the Gardai pleaded not guilty and all were acquitted.

However in that case the demonstrators would not interact with the Gardai to discuss where they planned to march and some of them arrived with video cameras so there was very little sympathy for them on the part of the jury. Clearly they were planning on causing trouble and they got what they were expecting, this case was different.

Milk & Honey

I have looked at some of the links above, some did not work. In no case was it clear that the sentences were after a not guilty plea before a jury. This is the single biggest factor in the sentences given to the gardai. It is not the deed itself, it is the attempt to brazen it out which has led to the sentences imposed.

MagicSean

Milk & Honey wrote: »

I have looked at some of the links above, some did not work. In no case was it clear that the sentences were after a not guilty plea before a jury. This is the single biggest factor in the sentences given to the gardai. It is not the deed itself, it is the attempt to brazen it out which has led to the sentences imposed.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1111/cuidzambam.html

The guys in this case got similar sentences to the Gardaí. The one who got four years had plenty of previous too.

BaronVon

Milk & Honey wrote: »

I have looked at some of the links above, some did not work. In no case was it clear that the sentences were after a not guilty plea before a jury. This is the single biggest factor in the sentences given to the gardai. It is not the deed itself, it is the attempt to brazen it out which has led to the sentences imposed.

Is it not a basic right to have your case heard? Surely it seems unfair to be punished for this basic right?

Offy

As a lay person I think it was fair. Violent crime should never be tolerated. I accept that AGS members have a difficult role in society but that should not entitle them to break the laws they are paid to uphold. Violence should never be tolerated.

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

opti76 wrote: »

surely if gardai are to be held in higher esteem as perpetrators of crime then they should also be afforded the same as victims of crime???

people ar saying the sentances goven are soft buy yet there are far more serious criminals walking free everyday..

while i agree with there conviction, as a serving garda i think there sentances should be the norm not the exception. i agree as gardai we should be above reproach .. we shouldnt do the things that we swore to prevent. but are we give the same protection by the courts that society was given in locking these men up does anyone here think if the roles were reversed and a garda was attacked in the same manor that the assailant would be given the same sentance .. especially if he had no previous convictions.. i dont think so somehow.

The sentences were not unduly heavy. Any lawyer advising a person in similar circumstances would have recommended a guilty plea in the District Court with an offer of compensation. Even without compensation there should have been a guilty plea. A defendant can't have his cake and eat it. Any defendant who contests a case before a jury and loses invariably gets a much stiffer sentence than if there was a guilty plea in the District Court. The vast majority of defendants plead guilty. If there are more serious criminals walking free it is because gardai are too busy sitting in wasteful juy trials instead of being out on the streets.

I didn't know it was a lawyers job to recommend that people plead guilty. Also, I don't see how they could have put in guilty plea in the district court (other than sending forward on a signed plea). It's not like they elected for trial by jury, it was a serious offence. I also don't agree at all that a jury trial is a waste of time - it's one of the funamental tenents of democracy. No one should be punished or exercising a democratic right, albeit that they don't get credit fir remorse and a guilty plea.

golden virginia

There was a fourth garda involved in the trial - he was acquitted. As far as i remember, he had a different solicitor to the other three.

Milk & Honey

infacteh wrote: »

Is it not a basic right to have your case heard? Surely it seems unfair to be punished for this basic right?

There is an absolute right to have your case heard. In having the case heard however the credit for an early guilty plea and admission of the facts is lost. In a situation where a victim is forced to give evidence and relive the experience the credit for a guilty plea is substantial. Likewise, setting up alternative facts which are not believed is an aggravating factor.
About 90% of cases in the system are dealt with by way of guilty plea. Giving credit for a guilty plea is a major factor in this. Because there is no credit for a guilty plea in murder cases most of them are fought at considerable expense and trauma for the family of the victim.

charlemont

detective wrote: »

Assuming everyone has heard the sentences handed down by Judge Reynolds yesterday what is the opinion of those sentences...

Glad they got locked up, But the sentences were harsh considering they would have no previous. But its hard to say either way as none of us have seen the CCTV footage.

But when you look at the very soft sentence in the disgusting attack in this link http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1112/1224307460895.html
the mind boggles.

Didnt realise there was already a link and post about the same incident...

Finnbar01

What I don't understand is that courts are meant to be consistent in their judjements???

Why did this garda get off after a serious assault???

Mr O'Sullivan said he had failed to raise the issue at sentencing yesterday that there was a recognised principle that a custodial sentence caused greater hardship to gardaí and prison officers.

It was recognised by the courts that convicted gardaí and prison officers suffer greater hardship in prison because they have to be segregated from other prisoners and end up more isolated.

Mr O'Sullivan said he had failed to raise the issue at sentencing yesterday that there was a recognised principle that a custodial sentence caused greater hardship to gardaí and prison officers.

It was recognised by the courts that convicted gardaí and prison officers suffer greater hardship in prison because they have to be segregated from other prisoners and end up more isolated.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0527/breaking29.html

I bet gardaí are ****ting themselves now.

coylemj

charlemont wrote: »

Glad they got locked up, But the sentences were harsh considering they would have no previous. But its hard to say either way as none of us have seen the CCTV footage.

But when you look at the very soft sentence in the disgusting attack in this link http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1112/1224307460895.html
the mind boggles.

+1 Can't understand how the main guy got away with 4 years for that type of attack which was (1) racially motivated (2) involved a weapon and (3) there no provocation whatsoever, the victim was simply 'set upon' and had the crap beaten out of him, leaving him disfigured and blind in one eye.

Finnbar01

coylemj wrote: »

+1 Can't understand how the main guy got away with 4 years for that type of attack which was (1) racially motivated (2) involved a weapon and (3) there no provocation whatsoever, the victim was simply 'set upon' and had the crap beaten out of him, leaving him disfigured and blind in one eye.

So if it wasn't racially motivated he should have got a reduced sentence???

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I didn't know it was a lawyers job to recommend that people plead guilty.

It's a lawyer's duty to cover all angles, that includes making tactical recommendations which could include telling the client that he'd be better off pleading guilty.

A solicitor or barrister in advance of a trial might, for example tell the client: 'the evidence against you is strong, I estimate that there's a 80% chance that you'll be convicted in which case you'll probably get a jail sentence. However if you plead guilty I'll be able to make a strong case for mitigation, you saved the victim the ordeal of giving evidence etc. and this particular judge is relatively generous when someone pleads guilty so on balance I recommend that you plead guilty in which case there's a strong chance that you'll get a suspended sentence'.

The problem with Gardai however is that (up to now anyway) they get fired for any kind of sentence (suspended or not) which involves jail time so they almost always plead not guilty to serious assault charges.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I also don't agree at all that a jury trial is a waste of time - it's one of the funamental tenents of democracy. No one should be punished or exercising a democratic right, albeit that they don't get credit fir remorse and a guilty plea.

Brazenly denying that you committed a crime and putting the State to the time and expense of proving that you did is considered just cause for giving the convicted person a harsher sentence, in this and every similar jurisdiction.

Yes the right to trial by jury is a fundamental tenet of the system but you have to be prepared to take the consequences if you're found guilty.

coylemj

Finnbar01 wrote: »

So if it wasn't racially motivated he should have got a reduced sentence???

For starters I'm claiming that he should have gotten a lot more than four years considering what he did to the victim, regardless of his skin colour but to answer your question directly ....

If there is a racial motive for an assault it's considered an aggravating factor so the answer would have to be 'yes'.

Finnbar01

coylemj wrote: »

For starters I'm claiming that he should have gotten a lot more than four years considering what he did to the victim, regardless of his skin colour but to answer your question directly ....

Yes of course he should have.

If there is a racial motive for an assault it's considered an aggravating factor so the answer would have to be 'yes'.

All assaults are motivated by violence.... skin colour is irrelevant.

coylemj

Finnbar01 wrote: »

All assaults are motivated by violence.... skin colour is irrelevant.

Agree in principle, if a black guy beats a white guy or v.v. then the skin colour shouldn't be an issue.

This case was different however because there clearly was a racial motivation behind the assult based on comments made by the main guy (read the Irish Times report) while he was beating the crap out of the victim.

MagicSean

coylemj wrote: »

Agree in principle, if a black guy beats a white guy or v.v. then the skin colour shouldn't be an issue.

This case was different however because there clearly was a racial motivation behind the assult based on comments made by the main guy (read the Irish Times report) while he was beating the crap out of the victim.

Not really. The fact that he used a racist remark only proves he was a racist. It doesnt necessarily prove the original motivation was racially motivated.

coylemj

MagicSean wrote: »

Not really. The fact that he used a racist remark only proves he was a racist. It doesnt necessarily prove the original motivation was racially motivated.

The fact that there was no provocation or indeed any interaction between the accused and the victim prior to the attack means that the accused couldn't possibly get away with that submission in court. He set upon the guy with a hurley and used a racial expletive while hitting him.

I'd suggest m'lord, members of the jury that the only conclusion anyone could draw is that he beat the crap out of the guy purely because of the colour of his skin so it was a racially motivated crime.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

It's a lawyer's duty to cover all angles, that includes making tactical recommendations which could include telling the client that he'd be better off pleading guilty.

A solicitor or barrister in advance of a trial might, for example tell the client: 'the evidence against you is strong, I estimate that there's a 80% chance that you'll be convicted in which case you'll probably get a jail sentence. However if you plead guilty I'll be able to make a strong case for mitigation, you saved the victim the ordeal of giving evidence etc. and this particular judge is relatively generous when someone pleads guilty so on balance I recommend that you plead guilty in which case there's a strong chance that you'll get a suspended sentence'.

There's a big difference between pointing out the advantages of a plea one way or another and recommending one course over the other. My understanding is that the only circumstance in which a lawyer can recommend a guilty plea is if the accused tells them that they are guilty. Otherwise it is up to the accused to make their own mind up as to which option they wish to take.

Brazenly denying that you committed a crime and putting the State to the time and expense of proving that you did is considered just cause for giving the convicted person a harsher sentence, in this and every similar jurisdiction.

Yes the right to trial by jury is a fundamental tenet of the system but you have to be prepared to take the consequences if you're found guilty.

There's nothing brazen about it at all. Its the states job to prove their case, so a trial on a not guilty plea is the default, although given the high percentage of guilty plea it might seem otherwise.

But a court cannot punish someone for pleading not guilty. It is simply that they might not get the credit of being remorseful and admitting their guilt. Often times a trial is necessary due to some uncertainty about the law and in such a case I don't think it is right to punish someone for seeking to clarify the law.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There's a big difference between pointing out the advantages of a plea one way or another and recommending one course over the other. My understanding is that the only circumstance in which a lawyer can recommend a guilty plea is if the accused tells them that they are guilty. Otherwise it is up to the accused to make their own mind up as to which option they wish to take.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. A lawyer can put the facts in front of the client and while not explicitly recommending a course of action, can make it pretty clear which way he/she thinks the client should go so I really don't see the point in splitting hairs on this one.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There's nothing brazen about it at all. Its the states job to prove their case, so a trial on a not guilty plea is the default, although given the high percentage of guilty plea it might seem otherwise.

This is something like the situation with penalty points. The 'standard' penalty is x but if you pay the fixed penalty notice (plead guilty in court), you get a lesser sentence/fine. You can call it a penalty for pleading not guilty or an incentive to plead guilty, it works out the same.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But a court cannot punish someone for pleading not guilty.It is simply that they might not get the credit of being remorseful and admitting their guilt.

We're into semantics here, there is no effective difference. Plead guilty and you get a lesser sentence means that if you plead not guilty you'll get hammered.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Often times a trial is necessary due to some uncertainty about the law and in such a case I don't think it is right to punish someone for seeking to clarify the law.

No it is not, a criminal trial is not held to clarify any aspect of the law, it is held to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and nothing else. If there is uncertainty about the law the case will end up in the appeal courts where the legal issue will get sorted out by judges. Juries don't get to fix uncertainties about the law, they only adjudicate on facts.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

We're into semantics here, there is no effective difference. Plead guilty and you get a lesser sentence means that if you plead not guilty you'll get hammered.

I think there is a difference. It goes to the whole purpose of credit for a guilty plea. Suggesting that someone will get hammered for not pleading guilty is not true as it implies that they will get a more severe sentence than the facts require.

No it is not, a criminal trial is not held to clarify any aspect of the law, it is held to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and nothing else. If there is uncertainty about the law the case will end up in the appeal courts where the legal issue will get sorted out by judges. Juries don't get to fix uncertainties about the law, they only adjudicate on facts.

how else does it get to the appeal courts unless it is run in the court of first instance?

MagicSean

coylemj wrote: »

The fact that there was no provocation or indeed any interaction between the accused and the victim prior to the attack means that the accused couldn't possibly get away with that submission in court. He set upon the guy with a hurley and used a racial expletive while hitting him.

I'd suggest m'lord, members of the jury that the only conclusion anyone could draw is that he beat the crap out of the guy purely because of the colour of his skin so it was a racially motivated crime.

People are attacked everyday for no particular reason. There's a class of person out there that uses violence for the hell of it. If he'd called him a f****t during the attack would it aitomatically mean it was homophobic too?

In any case, it isn't illegal to be racist so it shouldn't really be a factor in a criminal case as it is very prejudicial. It should only be allowed when it forms a necessary ingredient to a crime such as incitement or in cases where the defence argues that there is no motive.

MagicSean

coylemj wrote: »

There's more than one way to skin a cat. A lawyer can put the facts in front of the client and while not explicitly recommending a course of action, can make it pretty clear which way he/she thinks the client should go so I really don't see the point in splitting hairs on this one.

This is something like the situation with penalty points. The 'standard' penalty is x but if you pay the fixed penalty notice (plead guilty in court), you get a lesser sentence/fine. You can call it a penalty for pleading not guilty or an incentive to plead guilty, it works out the same.

We're into semantics here, there is no effective difference. Plead guilty and you get a lesser sentence means that if you plead not guilty you'll get hammered.

No it is not, a criminal trial is not held to clarify any aspect of the law, it is held to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and nothing else. If there is uncertainty about the law the case will end up in the appeal courts where the legal issue will get sorted out by judges. Juries don't get to fix uncertainties about the law, they only adjudicate on facts.

I would say that the Waterford case was very much a case based mostly on deciding if certain actions were illegal as opposed to wether they actually happened. The victims injuries were nowhere near what I would consider necessary for a charge of assault causing harm so it would've worth contesting on those grounds alone. I think the decision in this case will result in a number of cases being elevated from assault to assault causing harm.

Also, if the gardai believed the force they used was necessary to arrest the man then they would also be well justified in fighting the case because it would basicly be down to a matter of opinion.

Milk & Honey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's not like they elected for trial by jury, it was a serious offence.

It appeared to me that they did elect for trial by jury. Much more serious assaults are regularly dealt with in the District Court. No guard had ever been convicted by a jury before in a case like this.

Bosco boy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's not like they elected for trial by jury, it was a serious offence.

It appeared to me that they did elect for trial by jury. Much more serious assaults are regularly dealt with in the District Court. No guard had ever been convicted by a jury before in a case like this.

I've no problem with the conviction, I would think that the use of the pepper spray may have have resulted in the section 3 assault charge. The sentence is totally inconsistent with similar type charges and IMO justice has not been seen to have been done as it is excessive especially for anyone without a previous conviction. The media spotlight had a huge factor IMO and the courts should be above that.

coylemj

MagicSean wrote: »

People are attacked everyday for no particular reason. There's a class of person out there that uses violence for the hell of it. If he'd called him a f****t during the attack would it aitomatically mean it was homophobic too?

Eh, yes.

MagicSean wrote: »

In any case, it isn't illegal to be racist

True, but if your prejudices get the better of you and you attack a person for no other reason than that you dislike their skin colour or sexual orientation then given the times we live in, it is considered an aggravating factor.

MagicSean wrote: »

so it shouldn't really be a factor in a criminal case as it is very prejudicial.

Given that it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their race, it is perfectly reasonable to admit as evidence the fact that the acccused in this case issue a racial expletive while beating the crap out of the victim with a hurley.

You're not seriously suggesting that if the case had gone to a trial that the words spoken should have been witheld from the jury? Of course they were prejudicial but they came out of the mouth of the accused so were germane to the charge as they tended to show that the attack was racially motivated.

MagicSean wrote: »

It should only be allowed when it forms a necessary ingredient to a crime such as incitement or in cases where the defence argues that there is no motive.

I don't think this guy's counsel offered any motive for the attack, the victim had no interaction with his client (the accused) beforehand so there was no motive except that it was a racialy motivated attack. So by your own argument, what was spoken should have been admitted as evidence.

golden virginia

With regard to the above discriminations,, do you think that the gardai assault had a gender discrimination aspect to it?

A male was unrinating in public, a female gardai pepper sprayed him. Other male gardai then came on the scene and beat him. The female gardai then punched him with her closed fist on the back of his head as he lay blinded.

MagicSean

coylemj wrote: »

Eh, yes.

No. If we get into an argument and during the argument I call you an ignorant prick does that mean i started the argument because I thought you were ignorant or did i just get carried away?

coylemj wrote: »

True, but if your prejudices get the better of you and you attack a person for no other reason than that you dislike their skin colour or sexual orientation then given the times we live in, it is considered an aggravating factor.

Why?

coylemj wrote: »

Given that it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their race, it is perfectly reasonable to admit as evidence the fact that the acccused in this case issue a racial expletive while beating the crap out of the victim with a hurley.

You're not seriously suggesting that if the case had gone to a trial that the words spoken should have been witheld from the jury? Of course they were prejudicial but they came out of the mouth of the accused so were germane to the charge as they tended to show that the attack was racially motivated.

Yes I am suggesting that. The evidence of racial abuse had nothing at all to do with proving a section 3 assault. If the charge had been incitement to hatered then it would be of relevance.

coylemj wrote: »

I don't think this guy's counsel offered any motive for the attack, the victim had no interaction with his client (the accused) beforehand so there was no motive except that it was a racialy motivated attack. So by your own argument, what was spoken should have been admitted as evidence.

Those weren't my words. If the defence were arguing lack of motive as part of their denial of the facts then it could be introduced to counter that claim but otherwise it has no relevance to the charge.

MagicSean

golden virginia wrote: »

With regard to the above discriminations,, do you think that the gardai assault had a gender discrimination aspect to it?

A male was unrinating in public, a female gardai pepper sprayed him. Other male gardai then came on the scene and beat him. The female gardai kicked him in the head.

Where exactly is the discrimination or what part of that story to you see as discriminatory?

golden virginia

MagicSean wrote: »

Where exactly is the discrimination or what part of that story to you see as discriminatory?

Firstly. I totally revise my story. I have just re -read the newspaper articles and the garda who started it was a man(not a woman) who took such deep offence to the urination :eek: To me it seems very harsh to arrest for mere urination as opposed to giving a caution.

There was no motivation offered for the 3 who got convicted so in the absence of any motive, then motive is wide open to fantastical speculations = such as mine!
In contrast the guard who was acquitted was the only one of the four to give direct evidence to the jury for his motives in each use of force that he dished out.

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

It appeared to me that they did elect for trial by jury. Much more serious assaults are regularly dealt with in the District Court. No guard had ever been convicted by a jury before in a case like this.

As Bosco boy points out, there is no right of election for section 3 assault so it was either the dpp directing trial on indictment due to pepper spray/the fact that they were gardai or else the judge refused jurisdiction for the same reason.

MagicSean

golden virginia wrote: »

Firstly. I totally revise my story. I have just re -read the newspaper articles and the garda who started it was a man(not a woman) who took such deep offence to the urination :eek: To me it seems very harsh to arrest for mere urination as opposed to giving a caution.

You may not say that if it was your front door he was relieveing himself on. In any case i don't think that was what he was arrested for. It was merely the opening act. My understanding is that he was uncooperative and aggressive when he was caught in the act. He was then arrested for being abusive but resisted arrest and was sprayed. i think he accepted this when questioned.

Milk & Honey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As Bosco boy points out, there is no right of election for section 3 assault so it was either the dpp directing trial on indictment due to pepper spray/the fact that they were gardai or else the judge refused jurisdiction for the same reason.

Bosco Boy said nothing of the kind.

Assault causing harm is a scheduled offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1951.

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As Bosco boy points out, there is no right of election for section 3 assault so it was either the dpp directing trial on indictment due to pepper spray/the fact that they were gardai or else the judge refused jurisdiction for the same reason.

Bosco Boy said nothing of the kind.

Assault causing harm is a scheduled offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1951.

do you have a link to that?

I thought it wa a hybrid offence.

It's very hard to prove a negative ie that it is not scheduled, the best I can come up with is this link where the former director of public prosecutions says that it is not (at footnote 12 p158):

http://www.jsijournal.ie/html/Volume 4 No. 2/4[2]_Hamilton_Summary Trial of Indictable Offences.pdf

not conclusive but fairly authoritive I would say.