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.